States of Grace
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
Follow up to 2000's "God's Army", a spiritual drama about individuals in search of spiritual enlightenment and cleansing who intersect in Southern California. Much discussion of grace and mercy ensues...
Opinion:
Saying Richard Dutcher is the best filmmaker in the realm of LDS Cinema today is (a) true, and (b) not really much of a compliment, given the competition. (Kind of like saying Steve Young is by far the best quarterback ever to come from Greenwich, Connecticut) While other LDS films seem satisfied being relentlessly mediocre, Dutcher's movies at least try to be innovative and compelling. While occasionally heavy-handed, Dutcher to his credit tries to makes significant and memorable films that tackle emotional (often controversial) issues, and at least strive for greatness.
Regrettably, "States of Grace" is not the masterpiece that much of the early word-of-mouth claimed it to be--but that does not mean it's not worth watching. Far from it... Dutcher, even with a slight trend towards self-indulgence, still makes consistently compelling cinema, even if in this case it's not without some flaws.
"States of Grace" is ostensibly the sequel to "God's Army"--his first film from 2000--but early on had its 'sequelness' minimized, likely in the universal attempt to attract larger audiences. (The original prefix "God's Army II" has, in fact, been removed from the credits and packaging of the DVD release entirely. Viewers of "God's Army" will recognize the return of several minor characters, including the mission president who makes a comment about "doing some good today"--a key theme from the first movie. However, the connection between the films is irrelevant beyond a trivia standpoint--and Dutcher is probably correct in treating "States of Grace" as a completely separate film.)
The fundamental message of "States of Grace" is about forgiveness and mercy...and how to reconcile them with justice and accountability. Virtually all of the plot threads in this ensemble drama involve forgiveness in some fashion: why we need it, what happens when we don't get it, and how the cleansing power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ helps us obtain it. The underlying theme of this film is powerful and serves as another reminder that what makes Dutcher the best LDS filmmaker today is how he embraces the spiritual element within film, while many of his contemporaries seem to shy away from it.
The flaw that keeps "States of Grace" from A-level status, in my opinion, is one of authenticity. "God's Army" worked because it involved a universe where Dutcher is an insider. It accurately depicts the highs and lows of missionary work (and LDS membership in general) because it was written and directed by someone who's been there and has that fundamental understanding of what LDS life is like. Other people who have also been there (like myself) responded positively to "God's Army", because it was real in a way that an outsider to the Church attempting to make a film about LDS missionaries could never have grasped. To the extent that "States of Grace" is a meditation on the Atonement, it is successful because this, again, is something that Dutcher has undoubtedly reflected deeply upon throughout his life as a Latter-Day Saint...however, the framework by which the theme is presented--life in the rougher areas of Los Angeles, specifically gang life--does not have that same feel of authenticity, and the film suffers for it.
I don't believe Richard Dutcher has a deep understanding of what gang life in the ghettos of Los Angeles is like--he's not an insider to that culture, as he is with LDS culture, and thus the depiction of a former gang banger who tries to go straight through the gospel doesn't have that same feel of authenticity that "God's Army" did. I'm not talking about 'authenticity' as in "needs more F-words in the dialogue", but something more subtle that's hard to quantify. While I admittedly have no experience in the matter myself, I don't believe any current or former gang member will see "States of Grace" and nod their heads at the reality of gang life depicted in the movie the same way that LDS missionaries nodded their heads at "God's Army". That sense of someone with insider knowledge giving us a realistic glimpse into a different world isn't as present this time around, and, while it's not vital to the spiritual thrust of the story which still succeeds on its own merits, is still a limitation.
The story of Holly, the aspiring actress who has done some things in life she's not proud of, has a similar problem. Holly is played by Rachel Emmers who, if I'm remembering right, was the girl who wanted her YW leader to take her away from the 'bad place' after hearing the Everclean boys attempt to rap in "Sons of Provo".
Rachel Emmers is a good actress...who, in my opinion, is miscast in this role. Even with a decent-or-better performance, I didn't believe that Holly was really a girl who was forced to debase herself in the porn industry (even temporarily) in order to survive. This is not an acting issue--Holly has a seven minute monologue explaining the current state of her life which is very good...despite the fact that I still couldn't accept her in the role. It comes down, again, to that feel of authenticity. Rachel would have been absolutely perfect--in looks, personality, everything--in a role as a LDS sister missionary, for example, but lacks the gravitas to effectively portray a woman who would undoubtedly be even more world-weary and worn down by the burdens of life and sin than is portrayed on screen. I felt she was a good Mormon girl with acting talent who was taking her best guess as to what a woman like Holly would be like--not the real thing. A subtle distinction, but important.
There are other minor flaws that keep "States of Grace" from being a masterpiece. Pacing is slow--the movie just seems too long at 2:06 with at least twenty minutes that could have been tightened up without impacting the main story. The short episode with the missionaries talking about polygamy with an investigator isn't well written--lacking the nuance that the complementary missionary vignettes in "God's Army" dealing with the black priesthood ban and eternal families possessed. And Dutcher spends a LOT of camera time ogling girls in scantily dressed attire--far more than is necessary to make the point, and a little hypocritical when said point was ostensibly about NOT dwelling on the female form.
Should you see "States of Grace"? Will you remember it and talk about it after it's over? Will it present issues related to the Atonement and forgiveness that will cause deep reflection for some time afterwards? Despite the above complaints, the answer is still 'Yes', on all counts, and that makes "States of Grace" a success regardless of any flaws. Backhanded compliment or not, "States of Grace" still represents the best of what LDS cinema has to offer, and is well worth your time.
Content Analysis: (PG-13, 0-2-4-1 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
As with Dutcher's previous feature "Brigham City", "States of Grace" includes scenes of violence that take the film well past the PG rating level, but without being especially 'gratuitous'. (If you can handle Brigham City's violence, then States of Grace shouldn't be a problem, even if, from a volume standpoint, I believe "Grace" has more blood...)
The fact that "States of Grace" has no profanity in it deserves a little bit more discussion. (Seriously, I don't remember any...even a 'hell') Should this film have had more profanity in it, simply from an "authenticity" standpoint? After all, "that's how people talk"...as the cliché goes. (Note the self-fulfilling prophecy here--people swear in part because they are constantly exposed to forms of media which inform them that "that's how people talk"...)
I believe profanity is meaningless...in any context. Any message or emotion you could convey with profanity, could be conveyed without it just as well. Profanity does not make jokes funny, despite what lesser-talented comedians think. Profanity does not make dramas 'grittier' or more intense--good actors can sell it regardless of the words they say. I don't believe "States of Grace" would have benefited from more profanity, although I'd imagine there will be more than a few viewers who might disagree...
(Having said that, I'm aware of at least two movies with instances of profanity where, having heard it, I found that I wouldn't want them to go back and change it after the fact. What makes these examples of profanity seemingly 'vital' to a movie and useless virtually all other times? Still pondering that question, and this will be a subject of a future article...)
In-depth Analysis:
Some further discussion regarding issues from "States of Grace":
(1) Elder Farrell comments that his dad would rather have him come home in a casket than come home dishonored. While framed in the film as something that's 'shocking'--representing his dad's seeming greater concern for family honor and community status over the life of his son, the principle behind the statement comes directly from the scriptures:
And when he had called the people unto him with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Mark 8:34-37)
So, from a gospel perspective, is it better to die clean, or live corrupted with sin...and then die anyway, just later? Phrasing it this way is often a false choice (as it was in the movie for Elder Farrell, who with a little more caution could have just come home neither dishonored nor in a casket, but that's beside the point...) because few circumstances make you choose one or the other. The scriptures, however, seem clear which one is better in God's eyes. From an eternal perspective, death is not the ultimate tragedy--a soul not returning to its Father's presence is. Of course, part of the purpose of the Atonement (as mentioned in the movie) is that we don't have to die for our own sins--we can, in a sense, have our cake and eat it too.
Part of the difficulty for Church leaders or anyone in teaching doctrines such as repentance and the Atonement is the problem of keeping people away from both extremes, which requires pressure (but not TOO much pressure) in two opposite directions. It is dangerous for persons struggling with sin to believe that there is no hope for them--because through the Atonement any sin can be forgiven and cleansed. And yet, it is also dangerous to rely too heavily on the potential for forgiveness with a casual, shrug-your-shoulders, 'eh, I can just repent later' attitude. Effort spent pushing one group away from one extreme will work directly at pushing the other group towards the other extreme. With such an abstract and nebulous concept as forgiveness through the Atonement can be, it is very difficult to find the proper balance between teaching people to stay away from sin, while teaching them that sins can be forgiven at the same time.
(2) Louis comments, upon sharing his troubles with wine and women that led to him losing his ministry, that Jesus will forgive seventy times seven, but the people in his hometown will forgive only once. The admonition to forgive others is from a personal perspective, but is arguably different from a professional perspective. There are certain standards of professionalism that come with certain occupations, and once compromised, it can make the proper execution of one's job very difficult. It's impossible to set a standard of absolute perfection for any Church leader, but at the very least you expect a Church leader to be able to lead. One fall into temptation, after repentance, might make a preacher more effective, with an added level of personal experience...but two or more falls and you're looking at a continuing series of bad decisions and habits which compromises the ability for people in the congregation to take you seriously as a spiritual leader. Are we sure that there wouldn't have been a third time if Louis's second time was allowed to pass without serious penalty? Perhaps, in the end, he needed the loss of his congregation to seriously reconsider his priorities...and truly repent. When other people depend upon a congregational leader for spiritual guidance and expertise, it is counter-productive not to have someone who is, essentially, a good example--someone other people might want to emulate. Why risk the spiritual growth of everyone else in the congregation by presenting such an obvious stumbling block to them every time they attended church, especially if (I presume) they could have (and did) find someone else to take the role of preacher who did not have the same tremendous baggage.
It's possible that Louis was rejected personally by his hometown in addition to professionally. (Quite likely, in fact, considering he ended up homeless in California) In this context, the implied failure of his friends, family, and neighbors to forgive according to the scriptures is still relevant. But simply the fact that he was not allowed to continue as minister any more is not necessarily a failure of the community to live the law of the gospel.
(Question: if an LDS bishop continued to be called as bishop despite continuing problems with wine and women, would critics of the Church laud them for showing forgiveness until 'seventy times seven' as the scriptures say...or would this turn into one more bitter complaint against the Church? Methinks the latter...)
(3) It should be noted that Holly and Elder Farrell have no chemistry together at all...and I'm not sure that's a flaw. I'm unclear what Richard Dutcher intended the tone of their relationship to be, but if he meant to portray two people who find each other and fall in love, this marks a failure of the film. The two of them are clearly not "in love" (in fact, the word 'love' never comes up in the dialogue between them) and they could be brother and sister for all the 'heat' their relationship gives off. The fact that they end up having sex is irrelevant, because sex frequently has nothing to do with love. In this case, you seem to have two people who are lonely and happen to find someone who's 'nice' and provides a warm body to keep each other company. Throw in a situation with late night, unsupervised contact together, two emotionally vulnerable psyches, a few indulged impulses and voila!--you have an incident where the Law of Chastity is broken with a partner whom, frankly, neither one of them would ever considering marrying and spending their life with.
Giving Dutcher the benefit of the doubt, I have to believe that this was deliberate. The point was that, given the right circumstances, one can be tempted into breaking a fundamental covenant...not for love, but for nothing. Holly and Elder Farrell are good people, but their sexual encounter is meaningless and has no positive impact on their relationship. It's telling that at the end, their final words to each other amount to "Well, I'll call you sometime..." and not something along the lines of "I'll come back for you as soon as I can, and then we can be together!" as you might expect if they were really in love...and the film meant for us to believe they had a future together.
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) This thread from ldsfilm.com shows how God's Army struggled to get made, as well as some information on its early script. Note the outdated, early poster ad at the top (back when the "God's Army II" part of the title was highly emphasized) featuring characters that don't exist anymore in the finished film.
(2) There's a line of dialogue when Louis agrees to work at the local church run by an older widow where she says to Louis, "At least you're Christian..." I was sure this was going to be a lead-in, either immediately or later in the film, where she continues on to say, "...unlike those Mormons!" The setup was certainly there for a "Mormons == Christians (?)" plot point later in the film, but not followed up on. I find it strange that Dutcher himself wouldn't have thought of that Christian/Mormon context immediately, given that line of dialogue, so I don't know why in the end it didn't go anywhere. (Deleted scene?)
