Well, I finally have a few minutes to add my thoughts to the mix on this issue if anyone cares to listen. I was at the premiere of Brigham City along with the two Erics and as it happens my opinion falls somewhere between theirs. As for the mystery element of the story: I thought it was pretty much along standard lines. I mean, I knew that the red herrings were red herrings. In fact, the first one was so obviously a red herring that there was no suspense whatsoever for me in that scene. And here is the main reason it was so obvious: It was too early in the film for us to know who the killer was. That may seem like faulty reasoning, but the audience has been conditioned to view this genre in a certain way and Dutcher gave it to us just the way we've been conditioned. Now, I understand that the mystery isn't the real story going on here (and btw, I really liked the real story -- more on that later), but that doesn't mean that the skeleton of the film -- the mystery -- needs to look like all the other skeletons on the rack. I think Richard (I feel stupid calling him "Dutcher." I'm not a journalist, I will forego the SOP) could have done a little more to custom fit the skeleton to the skin he wound up putting on it. For instance, what might have helped make that scene more suspenseful is if it had been part of the main character's try-fail cycle. Let's say we see the protagonist make an accusation along the lines of ... oh ... It was Professor Plum who did it in the conservatory with the rope and then rushes off to the conservatory to save the next victim because he has just heard that the professor invited Miss Scarlett there for a spot of tea and winds up breaking into a perfectly innocent encounter, well then, we feel something for the protagonist and stay involved with the story, because even though we may be smart enough to know that the hero is wrong, we still want to know how that realization is going to effect the way he conducts the rest of his investigation. My example is also rather pedestrian, but little twists can be added here and there to a pedestrian scene to make it less so. My sixteen year old niece knew who the actual killer was long before I knew just because she knew that it had to wind up being the one person we were never meant to suspect. Her exact quote was, "It was so obvious he wanted me to suspect all these other people, I just knew that it couldn't be."

None of this is to give the impression that I didn't like the film. I loved it. I wasn't nearly as disappointed in the mystery side of things as say, Eric D. was. There were actually a few things that caught me off guard -- including who the killer was -- and I was glad for that. You should note that my criticisms are fairly nit picky, having to do with story and character development more than anything else because I have spent years in various critiquing groups of one kind or another and it's sort of a habit by now. For example, re: these comments about God's Army:

Thom wrote: The problem I had with the healing scene is that it seemed to come out of the clear blue. It didn't seem to "fit" artistically.

Cathy G. responded: OTOH, that's pretty much the nature of healings and such. Life goes on and on, and once in awhile we experience something from the spiritual realm that may be unexpected and seemingly out of context.

True, but a movie isn't real life. A movie -- all storytelling -- in my opinion, works best when connective threads run throughout binding seemingly disparate events together so that by the end we have that "Aha!" moment when we realize that "this thing" had something to do with "that thing" and so forth. In God's Army, it must be acknowledged that the healing was an abrupt occurrence that took too long to justify in terms of story. Of course, many of us accept that this kind of event can -- and does -- happen in the real world, and it can happen in this celluloid world as well, as long as it fits into the pattern that is being woven. I think three minutes of dialogue incisively placed earlier in the script would have given tremendous power to that event in the story of what was going on between Dalton and Allen. As it is, the healing says a great deal about the Church and the Gospel and Moron belief, but it doesn't have much to do with Dalton's story -- at least not clearly enough for me. I have imagined this exchange in my head between Dalton and Allen to be inserted into the movie soon after Dalton's cancer becomes known:

Allen: Haven't you ever had a blessing for it?

Dalton (Well, Duh!): Of course I have.

Allen: And?

Dalton: And I still have cancer.

Allen: Yeah, but--

Dalton: I've heard all the yeahbutts. Listen, I have faith. I know God can heal me if He wants to. Apparently He doesn't want to.

Allen: Oh.

Dalton: Bummer, huh?

Allen: Major.

Then, when Dalton becomes the instrument to bring about someone else's healing, and everyone keeps the faith they've developed, well, it rocks with meaning . . . for me.

Back to Brigham City. Some reactions I have solicited from a couple viewers: One man at work said that he had never felt so many variations of emotion in any film.

Dave Wolverton told me today that he really liked the film a lot for a couple of reasons specifically. Dave was initially put off by the fact that the story was a murder mystery, and even more so when he found out that the murderer was a serial killer. Dave pointed out that in virtually every so-called Hollywood film that deals with a sociopathic killer, the story spends most of its time forcing us to wallow in the mind of the killer. In Richard's film, that doesn't happen. We get a fairly rip snorting thriller without having to dwell in the killer's mind. (BTW, knowing sociopaths the way he does, after the film was over as Dave reflected on the killer's behavior throughout the film, he thought, "Of course! Of course!") "Instead of the darkness and pornography of Silence of the Lambs," he said. "We had a story full of light and hope."

And this is also my greatest joy of the film. Many people --including a woman in our ward -- are incensed that Richard shows things on film like priesthood blessings and baptisms etc. "What will people think of us." I think these people are ashamed of the gospel. Richard shows incredible bravery and brilliance in the way he handles the "Mormon" elements. As D. Michael said, take that stuff out, and you don't have a story. I am moved beyond words to describe how grateful I am that Richard took his camera into the chapel and the baptismal font. Not only into the mind and heart of a Mormon character, but into the heart and soul of what makes that character what he is. The last five minutes of Brigham City, where not a single word is spoken, has for me twice -- three times -- the power of the first thirty minutes of Saving Private Ryan (TV Guide's number one Best Moment in Cinema history).

My sacrament meetings will be different from here on out. Thanks, Richard.

J. Scott Bronson