Film critic and social commentator Michael Medved had a point recently when he observed that Hollywood has little interest in depicting Muslim terrorists, which are of course the big threat of our time, and instead typically characterizing terrorists as Caucasians. In an article for USA Today, Medved noted that this is especially absurd in the wake of the 911 attacks:
Since 2001’s devastating attacks, big studios have released numerous movies with terrorists as part of the plot, including Sum of All Fears, Red Eye, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum and many more, but virtually all of them show terrorists as Europeans or Americans with no Islamic connections. Even historically based thrillers downplay Muslim terrorism: Steven Spielberg’s Munich spends more than 80% of its running time showing Israelis as killers and Palestinians as victims, while Oliver Stone’s World Trade Center highlights the aftermath of the attacks with no depiction of those who perpetrated them. United 93 stands out among recent releases in showing Islamic killers in acts of terror — and it would be hard to tell that story without portraying the suicidal hijackers.
Beyond topicality, Tinseltown’s respect for Muslim sensibilities has proved so pervasive that there has been little or no reference to bloody episodes of the Islamic past. In Kingdom of Heaven, Muslim followers of Saladdin appear far more sympathetic than the thuggish, devious Christian Crusaders. Despite the fact that founders of Islam built their religion through centuries of conquest vastly more bloody than incidents at the beginnings of Mormonism, it’s unthinkable that filmmakers would ever depict Mohammed and his followers as viciously as they handle Brigham Young in September Dawn.
The news hook for Medved’s story was the then-impending release of September Dawn, a film depicting the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre in which paramilitary forces associated with the Latter Day Saints church massacred 120 members of a wagon train from Arkansas, including women and children, in Utah.
It was a terrible event and an utter atrocity, of course, but Medved is right to point out two problems with the film treatment. One is that it presents the Mormon leaders Brigham Young and Josep Smith as religious fanatics, when a fair treatment would require an equal emphasis on the persecution the Mormons endured in those early years. Nothing can excuse the Mountain Meadows Massacre, of course, but it wasn’t an isolated instance of religious fanaticism that was unique to the Mormons.
And that leads to Medved’s second and more important objection: that the film’s pretense that religious fanaticism in the West is an important concern for us today. It is absolutely not. It is Islam that is the religious threat to the West (and the rest of the world as well), and no other. Medved is correct to note,
The measured response to public smears of Mormonism in effect rebuts the September Dawn suggestion that the church represents a relevant example of violent religious fanaticism. Despite the turbulence of their founding generation, Mormons have been conspicuously peaceful, patriotic, hard-working and neighborly for at least the past 117 years (since the church repudiated and banned polygamy).
Nonetheless, it turns out he needn’t have worried: September Dawn has absolutely tanked at the box office, as Reuters reports:
The most painful debut of the weekend belonged to director Christopher Cain’s "September Dawn," the re-creation of a 19th century massacre committed by a band of Mormons. Released through Slowhand Releasing, the film earned just $901,857.
Why not let the women decide? What about if some wome prefer to share one alpha male than being the only one for a loser?
Well, let’s see. $1 million in U.S. receipts, with no big stars and hence limited appeal in foreign markets, as against a $10 million production budget, plus advertising, promotion, and prints, etc. DVD sales tend to track with theatrical success, though there can be exceptions. You may be right in thinking this film a potential moneymaker, but it doesn’t seem like a very promising economic proposition to me.
I find your title, “Disaster for Studio and Filmmakers” misleading.
I saw an interview with the show’s Producers and they had said it was not a “studio” film. It was independently financed and independently distributed. And because of the low advertising costs, it would actually do quite well in the DVD market.
I myself saw the film and loved it, but I am sure that the DVD sales will be huge. No one even knew of this film months ago and now everyone is aware of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Also, I saw where this film has made over $1 million at the box office and hasn’t even shown in foreign countries. The budget was only $10 million, which is nothing compared to large studio releases.
I think you will be suprised at how this film will do. The filmmakers may be smarter than you think.
It wasn’t hard to stay away from “September Dawn.” If somebody wants me to watch a movie that culminates in the murder of women and children, they’d better give me a better reason than anything these people suggested.
S.T., a good article, although you didn’t mention the concern that the movie would embarrass the Romney campaign by allegedly showing the true nature of Mormonism. It’s as if Hollywood released a movie about the Spanish Inquisition in 1959 after JFK declared his candidacy.
Also, Hollywood’s reticence in portraying Arab terrorists is not a new thing. How many major movies made in the Cold War era portrayed the Soviets/Communists as the bad& evil guys they were, as compared to the Nazis? Hollywood has always found it easier to portray Nazis as the bad guys than the Communists.