Des News Article Re: "Under the Banner of Heaven" Mini Series

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure, but she would have only been presenting things to the actual creatives (e.g., writers, directors, costume designers, etc.) not to us, the viewers.

No, I meant in the promos or whatever where she talks with press or public.

[gopher]

I think their mistake was to make a serious drama about the horrible events that took place.  Instead, they should have made it into a light-hearted comedy like the upcoming movie about the kidnapping and rape of a missionary serving in England.

Quote

Maisie Williams, Freddie Highmore to Lead Manacled Mormon Comedy ‘Sinner v. Saints’

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/maisie-williams-freddie-highmore-sinner-saints-mormon-comedy-1235143018/

Edited May 10, 2022 by gopher
forgot to include kidnapping

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, gopher said:

I think their mistake was to make a serious drama about the horrible events that took place.  Instead, they should have made it into a light-hearted comedy like the upcoming movie about the rape of a missionary serving in England.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/maisie-williams-freddie-highmore-sinner-saints-mormon-comedy-1235143018/

Beat me to the punch.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/05/09/manacled-mormon-movie/

[gopher]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Beat me to the punch.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/05/09/manacled-mormon-movie/

Did you also have a snarky comment to include as well?

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

Interesting in reading the outrage from some members over the historical inaccuracies presented in the series.  I would like to see the same outrage when looking at some of the productions produced by the Church.

I think there is a marked difference between 'failing to be 100% accurate at all times,' and 'completely making crap up.' YMMV.

Also, for what it's worth, I don't consider myself to be "outrage[d]" over any of the historical inaccuracies presented thus far, but I freely admit that they do make the show harder to enjoy.

For example, when they have Joseph translating the Book of Mormon (+1 for using the hat!), the words dictated to Emma aren't actually from the Book of Mormon. From an entertainment perspective, I find that kind of inaccuracy particularly jarring.

Now, I get that a lot of people won't be bothered by that sort of thing; if the closest I ever got to the Book of Mormon was a Marriott hotel nightstand, I probably wouldn't be bothered by it either. But for people who know better...yeah - it's kind of annoying.

 

[Nofear]

3 minutes ago, gopher said:

Did you also have a snarky comment to include as well?

Sure, why not. Technically, a woman can't rape a man in the UK per legal definition. So the news headline got that wrong.
https://www.blmsolicitors.co.uk/2021/02/can-a-woman-rape-a-man/

[california boy]

11 hours ago, cinepro said:

I don't think I've seen any LDS complain about the actual historical recreations being inaccurate. The complaints I've seen are more about the culture and experience of early 1980s Utah.

Granted, I (thankfully) grew up outside of Utah in the early 1980s, so I can't speak from personal experience. And I've only watched the first episode. But it seemed like some really odd Twilight Zone episode more than a story placed in any real-world setting.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more comparison to the Netflix Mark Hofmann documentary. It's obviously a different format (a documentary with dramatizations), but I don't recall a single complaint from any LDS, and the dramatizations depict almost the same time and place. The sets and scenarios all felt like totally authentic mid-1980s Utah as I would imagine it, and people from that place and era seemed to agree. And it dealt with similarly difficult history and issues, but it was almost universally lauded by TBM and exMo alike for its presentation.

Heck, I even get weird nostalgia flashbacks from "Stranger Things." I would expect a well produced show to be giving people who were living in Utah in the 1980s similar flashbacks, instead of leaving them scratching their heads about why people are talking so funny and acting so weirdly about their crazy-violent church.

 

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Generally speaking, where the more contemporary Church's productions have faced criticism is because of omission of things certain individuals thought were important which the Church deemed as not necessarily spiritually uplifting. Such items do exist. The history of the Church is by no means an example of spiritual perfection (and yes, its phase of not dealing with history appropriately is included in that). Yet, by and large, the "faults" of recent productions are omissions (and even that has gotten flak). Even your examples are sins of omission. Under the Banner of Heaven's faults are not omission or even inclusion, but outright misrepresentation.

The Hoffman series was by no means an attempt to be flattering to the Church. Yet, at the same time it wasn't rife with overtly false portrayals. As such, I didn't mind it.

 

Does it make any difference to either of you that one is a Hollywood production that is leaving important things out and making up their own narrative and the other claims to be the church of Jesus Christ?

[Nofear]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

Does it make any difference to either of you that one is a Hollywood production that is leaving important things out and making up their own narrative and the other claims to be the church of Jesus Christ?

In grad school I had a friend from Bangladesh who was disappointed with the United States not because this country wasn't "better" than his native country but rather, in many cases, the US did not live up to the expectations of its promise. He wanted the US to do better. If I thought you had positive expectations of the Church, maybe your question would be worth answering (it's a rhetorical question anyway). Some years ago I probably would have thought you expected at least some good from the Church. Of late (i.e. the past year or so), I get more the impression that you see the difference between Hollywood and the Church is minimal in your mind's eye. I'm probably wrong. I make no claim to being a good judge of character.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Nofear

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

No, I meant in the promos or whatever where she talks with press or public.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Yes, she would certainly be responsible for those comments.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

 

Does it make any difference to either of you that one is a Hollywood production that is leaving important things out and making up their own narrative and the other claims to be the church of Jesus Christ?

But from what I'm seeing, that isn't the issue.

The issue isn't historical facts and what is being left out or included in the narrative. The problem is the world that is being re-created. "Banner of Heaven" is re-creating a setting of Utah/Mormon culture in American Fork, Utah in the summer of 1984. This is a real place, at a real time, even if some of the specific characters are fictional.

The complaints seem to focus on the show going out of its way to make things a lot weirder than they were. The language isn't the language that was used. People aren't relating to each other the way people in American Fork, Utah did in 1984. If you make a based-on-reality show about American Fork in the summer of 1984, and people who lived in American Fork in 1984 (and similar communities in Utah) are mystified at why people are talking to each other oddly and acting weirdly, then that's a failure. The show seems to go out of its way to make the language and culture weirder than it was to appeal to people who wouldn't know better.

Like I've said, I didn't live there. So if I watched the show and thought it was weird but people who lived there were saying "Wow, it's like watching home movies of how things were back then!", I would consider it instructional on how weird Utah was in 1984 and salute the filmmakers for a job well done.

The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, cinepro said:

But from what I'm seeing, that isn't the issue.

The issue isn't historical facts and what is being left out or included in the narrative. The problem is the world that is being re-created. "Banner of Heaven" is re-creating a setting of Utah/Mormon culture in American Fork, Utah in the summer of 1984. This is a real place, at a real time, even if some of the specific characters are fictional.

The complaints seem to focus on the show going out of its way to make things a lot weirder than they were. The language isn't the language that was used. People aren't relating to each other the way people in American Fork, Utah did in 1984. If you make a based-on-reality show about American Fork in the summer of 1984, and people who lived in American Fork in 1984 (and similar communities in Utah) are mystified at why people are talking to each other oddly and acting weirdly, then that's a failure. The show seems to go out of its way to make the language and culture weirder than it was to appeal to people who wouldn't know better.

Like I've said, I didn't live there. So if I watched the show and thought it was weird but people who lived there were saying "Wow, it's like watching home movies of how things were back then!", I would consider it instructional on how weird Utah was in 1984 and salute the filmmakers for a job well done.

The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.

But couldn't the same be said for the church attempting to make things seem more normal than they really were in its depictions of historical events? Why leave out the narrative of the face in the hat for so long unless they thought it looked better to have JS studiously examining the plates? Why leave out so many elements of the magical world view that Joseph shared with many in his day and age?

 

[CA Steve]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But couldn't the same be said for the church attempting to make things seem more normal than they really were in its depictions of historical events? Why leave out the narrative of the face in the hat for so long unless they thought it looked better to have JS studiously examining the plates? Why leave out so many elements of the magical world view that Joseph shared with many in his day and age?

 

Artistic license only works when defending the church, otherwise it is no bueno.

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.

I continue to be somewhat critical of the characterizations in UtBoH, but I don't think this comparison is a good one. A documentary is very different from a show that is specifically designed to be a drama.

Edited May 10, 2022 by ttribe

[ttribe]

I think this was a good critique of the show: https://religionandpolitics.org/2022/05/10/violence-in-mormon-ways-a-review-of-under-the-banner-of-heaven/

A couple of quotes:

Quote

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have largely enjoyed an era of tolerance over the past century, though they are the second least liked religious group in America after Muslims. Yet, the representation of Latter-day Saints and their fundamentalist polygamous cousins as deluded and dangerous is a sticky stereotype tracing back to its earliest years. On the great scale of “good religion” and “bad religion” in the American consciousness, Mormonism has often fallen on the wrong side of the balance. Media has frequently been a key driver of that judgment in what scholar Brenda R. Weber describes as “mediated Mormonism’s” pedagogical value as an example of bad religion.

Much of the public discussion about the show and the book has centered on its “accuracy” in portraying Mormonism. Does it tell the truth about Latter-day Saint people, history, and culture? Krakauer and Black are quite clear about how they answer this question. The murders reveal a dark underbelly of Mormonism and its people. This suspicion about Mormons, that just under the surface they conceal a horrible secret that is dangerous, is made explicit. Tales of Mormons as dangerous, especially for women, fueled 19th-century pop culture. As “Under the Banner of Heaven” suggests, this remains a popular feature of mediated Mormonism today.

 

Quote

THE MAIN THRUST OF the criticism directed at the book and TV series is that the popular discussion of the murders is a severe distortion of the Latter-day Saint tradition. I admit that my initial reaction tracked with many critics of the show. To me, the series often veered into heavy-handed, inauthentic, unfair, and inaccurate territory. The story leaves out that Mormonism has certainly produced its fair share of good and decent folks, and even some exceptionally good ones. Further, as Patrick Mason, the most important critic and chronicler of Mormonism and violence has demonstrated, Mormonism has not only spurred violence at the edges, but it has inspired a small pacifist tradition as well.

But upon further consideration, I worry that this critique evades the central problem that Krakauer and Black are raising. In my view, they have addressed the problem with insufficient rigor and care, but they are not the ones who created the problem. The problem is that religious individuals claiming access to divine instruction use and justify power, violence, heteropatriarchy, racism, and more, to hurt people.

The murders of Brenda and Erica Lafferty are not simply violence against a woman and child in a patriarchal society. Rather, these murders are done in specifically Mormon ways, drawing on Mormon ideology, stewed in the culture of the Mormon heartland, and performed ritualistically. These men killed because of a revelation they received. And they are not the only ones who have been entranced by a violent version of Mormonism.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

In grad school I had a friend from Bangladesh who was disappointed with the United States not because this country wasn't "better" than his native country but rather, in many cases, the US did not live up to the expectations of its promise. He wanted the US to do better. If I thought you had positive expectations of the Church, maybe your question would be worth answering (it's a rhetorical question anyway). Some years ago I probably would have thought you expected at least some good from the Church. Of late (i.e. the past year or so), I get more the impression that you see the difference between Hollywood and the Church is minimal in your mind's eye. I'm probably wrong. I make no claim to being a good judge of character.

Well you are mind reading me wrong here.  If you really read a lot of my posts, you would understand that I do see a lot of good in the Church and I do expect them to do better than Hollywood.  One of the main reasons why I post here is because I expect more from the Church.  When you do see my posts here, it is specifically because I feel like the Church could do better in the areas that I post about.  

But my question really wasn't about me.  This whole thread is picking apart the inaccuracies and discrepancies that people's life experiences in growing up in Utah vs what they see portrayed.  But it seems like these SAME members in most cases have no problem with the inaccuracies and discrepancies that the Church has perpetuated.  I just find it odd that they hold Hollywood to a higher standard than the Church.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

But from what I'm seeing, that isn't the issue.

The issue isn't historical facts and what is being left out or included in the narrative. The problem is the world that is being re-created. "Banner of Heaven" is re-creating a setting of Utah/Mormon culture in American Fork, Utah in the summer of 1984. This is a real place, at a real time, even if some of the specific characters are fictional.

The complaints seem to focus on the show going out of its way to make things a lot weirder than they were. The language isn't the language that was used. People aren't relating to each other the way people in American Fork, Utah did in 1984. If you make a based-on-reality show about American Fork in the summer of 1984, and people who lived in American Fork in 1984 (and similar communities in Utah) are mystified at why people are talking to each other oddly and acting weirdly, then that's a failure. The show seems to go out of its way to make the language and culture weirder than it was to appeal to people who wouldn't know better.

Like I've said, I didn't live there. So if I watched the show and thought it was weird but people who lived there were saying "Wow, it's like watching home movies of how things were back then!", I would consider it instructional on how weird Utah was in 1984 and salute the filmmakers for a job well done.

The Hofmann documentary seems to have really gotten it right with their recreations. So it can be done.

How is that different than the Church portraying it's history to the world and it's members in a way that the members back then wouldn't recognize?  Do you think Emma would be surprised at how the Church throughout its history portrayed how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon?  Do you think she would be saying, hey wait a minute, where did this narrative come from? That is nothing like how he translated the Book of Mormon.

Edit:  I should have read a little further.  I see that HJW asked the same question.

Edited May 10, 2022 by california boy

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This whole thread is picking apart the inaccuracies and discrepancies that people's life experiences in growing up in Utah vs what they see portrayed.  But it seems like these SAME members in most cases have no problem with the inaccuracies and discrepancies that the Church has perpetuated.  I just find it odd that they hold Hollywood to a higher standard than the Church.  

“Ooh, sure the show did bad things but so have you guys so stop your hypocritical whining.” Repeating the accusation doesn't make it true. A counter assertion was made and ignored. (But, hey you got thumbs ups from the cheerleading squad for repeating yourself so yay!) While there have been missteps, we own that, not excuse it, and are glad we are doing better.

 

PS: There is a good chance I'll be away for a couple of days but might have the patience to respond. /shrug

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Nofear said:

“Ooh, sure the show did bad things but so have you guys so stop your hypocritical whining.” Repeating the accusation doesn't make it true. A counter assertion was made and ignored. (But, hey you got thumbs ups from the cheerleading squad for repeating yourself so yay!) While there have been missteps, we own that, not excuse it, and are glad we are doing better.

 

PS: There is a good chance I'll be away for a couple of days but might have the patience to respond. /shrug

I have no idea what you are talking about in the bold statement.  What exactly have I written that is hypocritical??

[Nofear]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have no idea what you are talking about in the bold statement.  What exactly have I written that is hypocritical??

I was impolitely rephrasing/paraphrasing your accusation of those who dislike the show. And the accusation *is* basically calling us hypocrites.

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

I think this was a good critique of the show: https://religionandpolitics.org/2022/05/10/violence-in-mormon-ways-a-review-of-under-the-banner-of-heaven/

A couple of quotes:

 

 

Thanks for posting that. I find myself in agreement with Dr. Petrey, whose analysis is solid, as usual. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I was impolitely rephrasing/paraphrasing your accusation of those who dislike the show. And the accusation *is* basically calling us hypocrites.

Well I guess that is one way of putting it.  I can see why you came to that conclusion.  But I was actually looking for an answer to my question.

[bluebell]

Isn't this whole "why didn't you complain about the history when the church did this..." argument just a catch-22 for people on both sides?  

If the church was wrong for not showing more honest depictions of certain events because they were more in favor of presenting their perspective, then isn't the mini-series wrong for the same reasons?  So you can't argue that the church was wrong without also condemning the mini-series for the same faults or you're being hypocritical.

And of course likewise, if the mini-series is wrong for presenting biased history then the church was wrong as well and you can't be upset at one and not the other without being hypocritical either.

Both sides are kind of equally condemning themselves in their condemnation of the other side, aren't they?

(And I do know that plenty of ex-members would not/have no defended the miniseries' poor and biased representation of certain events.  But there have been plenty of members over the years who have been vocal against the church's whitewashed presentation of history and very supportive of their new more open and honest way of doing things as well, so again, both sides seem to be equal in that too.

But I haven't read every post so I might have missed some key aspect of this debate that changes the dynamic I think I'm seeing.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

This whole thread is picking apart the inaccuracies and discrepancies that people's life experiences in growing up in Utah vs what they see portrayed.  But it seems like these SAME members in most cases have no problem with the inaccuracies and discrepancies that the Church has perpetuated.  

I tend to nitpick the inaccuracies in pretty much the same way as far as I can tell (of course, personal bias may blind me to differences).  I don’t think it is a big deal when things are simplified to make it easier for the audience to understand (I see not using the head in hat to illustrate translation because it would require an explanation if unaware of the method where having the plates on the table does not as much the same as having BYU in Salt Lake City rather than Provo, though I realize some people see the head in hat as really odd and if that is the reason it is avoided, that would bother me)….though I would prefer taking the time to educate.

It does bug me though when they inflate certain real people’s characteristics into negative ways that don’t match reality or alter the emotional experience of real people…for example, I don’t like the way Thomas Marsh has  been depicted as overreacting to just the cream strippings, as if that was the primary trigger for his apostasy.  There was a lot leading up to the reality, including his concern about violence.
 

 I am definitely weighted though towards being harsher about inappropriate negative depictions of living and recently passed people than doing the same to the long dead as well as weighted against negative portrayals versus idealized.  I personally see the negative skewing as unjust and unkind where idealizing made be something out of misguided affection.

I have seen quite a few defenders approach church and faithful members’ presentations in the same way, I don’t see myself as unusual in my criticism.

Edited May 11, 2022 by Calm

[Nofear]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well I guess that is one way of putting it.  I can see why you came to that conclusion.  But I was actually looking for an answer to my question.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74497-des-news-article-re-under-the-banner-of-heaven-mini-series/?do=findComment&comment=1210094359

That is about the history. If you want to make a recent claim that the Church has the same level of dishonesty that the mini series does about how it handles it's history currently, you are welcome to bandy a few examples before us and we (probably not I, since I'll be gone for a bit) can compare.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

I continue to be somewhat critical of the characterizations in UtBoH, but I don't think this comparison is a good one. A documentary is very different from a show that is specifically designed to be a drama.

If you recall, the documentary had lots of recreations, with actors and sets and costumes depicting Hofmann and his associates. Those are the scenes I was referring to. Granted, I don't think there was much dialogue, and it's hard to over-do a couple guys in an MR2 going out to the desert to shoot Uzis.