- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the review. Interesting. But I doubt it’s ever going to reach over here! I finally got my hands on a copy of 17 miracles. One of my interests is in storytelling, particularly of historical events. I find it fascinating what stories are told which ones are left out, which ones are modified and which ones are completely invented. I have read a few books on the Willie/Martin companies so I felt that I had some perspective on this process. First and foremost, I loved the movie! I felt that it did a much more even handed treatment than Fire and the Covenant – the Lund book dealing with the same material.
I see 3 main themes or morals in the story:
1) That God watches out for his children and gives them miracles to know that he cares (even if never enough to significantly change their circumstances).
2) That the struggles of these companies “were worth it” in a number of ways:
2A) Preparing these saints to be leaders in early Utah
2B) Creating individuals of such character that God would accept their sacrifice as a precursor to greater heavenly glory
2C) In the case of one young woman who refused to marry her sweetheart except they be sealed (I’m guessing at Ensign Peak or the endowment house because there were no temples for an addition 20 years). She repeatedly said “It will all be worth it” – her promise was apparently fulfilled when she was sealed by proxy to her sweetheart almost 150 years later (and after spending the rest of her life as a plural wife to another man).
2D) That it is not what you experience in this life that truly matters but rather how you deal with it. (see theme #3)
3) That fallen man can degenerate to animals (metaphorically represented as wolves) while the chips are down – but that true saints act the part even in dire circumstances. Even though it is historically doubtful that Levi Savage disposed of Donner party corpses, this introduction was necessary to this theme. Levi speaks of seeing good men turn into animals being his “greatest fear.” Levi is chased away by some wolves in the middle of the movie to represent his sometimes succumbing to his fear. The commentary mentions that additional Donner party flashbacks were added after test screenings to help the audience tie the two together. Finally there is a scene after the climax of the movie (when rescue scouts had arrived but the supply wagons were still some distance away) that the wolves return to pick off an unsuspecting toddler. Levi without a weapon charges the wolves and this time frightens
themaway. He shouts “Never come back again!” He has overcome his fear (that man’s responses are determined by his situations) and it has no more power over him. Director T.C. Christensen explains in the commentary that this scene was invented to complete Levi’s “character arc.” From this perspective, hidden in Levi’s warnings about the lateness of the season was his bigger personal demon, the thought that the saints would turn on each other and give in to their baser instincts. That this largely didn’t happen was a testament to the power of the gospel and gave Levi the courage/fortitude/faith to change his perspective. i.e. – even if Levi was right about the impending disaster, he was wrong in his estimation of what that would do to the character of the saints in the party (to many it became an ennobling experience rather than a debasing one).
This is a story! And these themes are valid and even fascinating perspectives with which to frame and tell the story. I loved the movie!
Because I recognize that it was a story. I won’t pick apart historical inaccuracies…except for one. This one caused me to blurt out “that’s a lie” at the end of the film. Kevin Burtt provided the following analysis.
Quote:It gets worse: another end title makes the statement that the casualties suffered by the Willie/Martin companies were “just about the same” as other pioneer treks along the Oregon Trail in US history. Why are we suddenly comparing Willie/Martin to Oregon Trail groups (who were covering an additional 800 miles of treacherous territory)? Why not do an apples-to-apples comparison with the other Mormon handcart companies from 1856-1860:
• Ellsworth company (1856) — 13 deaths
• McArthur company (1856) — 7 deaths
• Bunker company (1856) — 7 deaths
• Willie company (1856) — 68 deaths
• Martin company (1856) — 154 deaths
• Evans company (1857) — unknown
• Christiansen company (1857) — 6 deaths
• Rowley company (1859) — 5 deaths
• Robison company (1860) — 1 death
• Stoddard company (1860 — zero deaths
See any outliers among those statistics? Here’s a graph for further emphasis:
And now the film is trying to make the case that Willie / Martin were “just about the same” as other pioneer groups, as if losing 200 members of a pioneer company is suddenly just par for the course? Doesn’t this attempt to minimize the losses also minimize the sacrifice of the faithful Saints who listened to their leaders and pressed forward with both companies only to die upon the way?
What Kevin doesn’t say is that the film says that the fact of the loss of life being pretty comparable to other pioneer migrations was the “biggest miracle of all” given their circumstances. The literalist in me cries foul. The Martin Company had almost 12 times as many deaths as the next most fatal handcart journey (excluding the Willie). Is that what passes for a miracle???:wtf: The story teller in me wonders if they meant that given their dire circumstances, it was a miracle that they didn’t turn on each other – stealing from, killing, and eating each other (that could have theoretically raised or lowered the death toll depending on how it played out) as could have been the case and has already been discussed as a reoccurring theme. But even if that was their intent, I feel that it was dishonest in the way that it was worded.
That many take their understanding of historical events from stories such as this is a topic for another day.
Roy wrote:
Because I recognize that it was a story. I won’t pick apart historical inaccuracies…except for one. This one caused me to blurt out “that’s a lie” at the end of the film. Kevin Burtt provided the following analysis.Quote:It gets worse: another end title makes the statement that the casualties suffered by the Willie/Martin companies were “just about the same” as other pioneer treks along the Oregon Trail in US history. Why are we suddenly comparing Willie/Martin to Oregon Trail groups (who were covering an additional 800 miles of treacherous territory)? Why not do an apples-to-apples comparison with the other Mormon handcart companies from 1856-1860:
• Ellsworth company (1856) — 13 deaths
• McArthur company (1856) — 7 deaths
• Bunker company (1856) — 7 deaths
• Willie company (1856) — 68 deaths
• Martin company (1856) — 154 deaths
• Evans company (1857) — unknown
• Christiansen company (1857) — 6 deaths
• Rowley company (1859) — 5 deaths
• Robison company (1860) — 1 death
• Stoddard company (1860 — zero deaths
See any outliers among those statistics? Here’s a graph for further emphasis:
And now the film is trying to make the case that Willie / Martin were “just about the same” as other pioneer groups, as if losing 200 members of a pioneer company is suddenly just par for the course? Doesn’t this attempt to minimize the losses also minimize the sacrifice of the faithful Saints who listened to their leaders and pressed forward with both companies only to die upon the way?
What Kevin doesn’t say is that the film says that the fact of the loss of life being pretty comparable to other pioneer migrations was the “biggest miracle of all” given their circumstances. The literalist in me cries foul. The Martin Company had almost 12 times as many deaths as the next most fatal handcart journey (excluding the Willie). Is that what passes for a miracle???:wtf: The story teller in me wonders if they meant that given their dire circumstances, it was a miracle that they didn’t turn on each other – stealing from, killing, and eating each other (that could have theoretically raised or lowered the death toll depending on how it played out) as could have been the case and has already been discussed as a reoccurring theme. But even if that was their intent, I feel that it was dishonest in the way that it was worded.
That many take their understanding of historical events from stories such as this is a topic for another day.
There is a joke I am fond of that reminds me of this event.
Quote:It was flooding in California. As the flood waters were rising, a man was on the stoop of his house and another man in a row boat came by. The man in the row boat told the man on the stoop to get in and he’d save him. The man on the stoop said, no, he had faith in God and would wait for God to save him. The flood waters kept rising and the man had to go to the second floor of his house. A man in a motor boat came by and told the man in the house to get in because he had come to rescue him. The man in the house said no thank you. He had perfect faith in God and would wait for God to save him. The flood waters kept rising. Pretty soon they were up to the man’s roof and he got out on the roof. A helicopter then came by, lowered a rope and the pilot shouted down in the man in the house to climb up the rope because the helicopeter had come to rescue him. The man in the house wouldn’t get in. He told the pilot that he had faith in God and would wait for God to rescue him. The flood waters kept rising and the man in the house drowned. When he got to heaven, he asked God where he went wrong. He told God that he had perfect faith in God, but God had let him drown.
“What more do you want from me?” asked God. “I sent you two boats and a helicopter.”
Levi was sent as the “experienced voice of reason” from god as an analogy to this. They dismissed it and went with there gut that god would save them from there foolishness. God sent help. A voice of reason, it wasn’t headed but they expected divine intervention. Can god save those in their pride? Low, he sent a rational experienced man to testify of the tragedy of leaving late. Even if “all” his fears didn’t come true(thankfully). Why didn’t you try to save them god? Did he not send a man of experience to testify of the dangers who was ignored because they counted on a godly “miracule” to save them. Instead of something…you know….more human to?!
Forgotten_Charity wrote:Levi was sent as the “experienced voice of reason” from god as an analogy to this. They dismissed it and went with there gut that god would save them from there foolishness. God sent help. A voice of reason, it wasn’t headed but they expected divine intervention. Can god save those in their pride? Low, he sent a rational experienced man to testify of the tragedy of leaving late. Even if “all” his fears didn’t come true(thankfully). Why didn’t you try to save them god? Did he not send a man of experience to testify of the dangers who was ignored because they counted on a godly “miracule” to save them. Instead of something…you know….more human to?!
I tend to agree but my overall point is that I can enjoy this film as a story without it necessarily reflecting accurately historical events or the economy of heavenly miracles. I can enjoy the Davinci Code, or the Titanic, or Codetalkers etc. and not expect it to be a history lesson.
Some stories take more liberties than others. What might the way we tell the handcart pioneer story say about us? This is why I find the loosely historical stories that are told in mormondom so fascinating. There are two realities: 1) where we have been and 2) what we think it means. I believe that the divergence between these two are found in the stories that we share as a community. In a way it becomes our communal soul. They bind us together in a shared heritage…like the way Jewish families tell the stories and miracles of the OT. For me this is very cool stuff.
Roy wrote:Forgotten_Charity wrote:Levi was sent as the “experienced voice of reason” from god as an analogy to this. They dismissed it and went with there gut that god would save them from there foolishness. God sent help. A voice of reason, it wasn’t headed but they expected divine intervention. Can god save those in their pride? Low, he sent a rational experienced man to testify of the tragedy of leaving late. Even if “all” his fears didn’t come true(thankfully). Why didn’t you try to save them god? Did he not send a man of experience to testify of the dangers who was ignored because they counted on a godly “miracule” to save them. Instead of something…you know….more human to?!
I tend to agree but my overall point is that I can enjoy this film as a story without it necessarily reflecting accurately historical events or the economy of heavenly miracles. I can enjoy the Davinci Code, or the Titanic, or Codetalkers etc. and not expect it to be a history lesson.
Some stories take more liberties than others. What might the way we tell the handcart pioneer story say about us? This is why I find the loosely historical stories that are told in mormondom so fascinating. There are two realities: 1) where we have been and 2) what we think it means. I believe that the divergence between these two are found in the stories that we share as a community. In a way it becomes our communal soul. They bind us together in a shared heritage…like the way Jewish families tell the stories and miracles of the OT. For me this is very cool stuff.
On that way I agree. A story need not be historical accurate or even Historicly at all to get meaning out of. Stories(like art), can be used in a verity. It need not be accurate or historic. It just requires that we can take something away from it that is meaningful to us. Different people can take a different meaning to a story and apply it in a way that works for them. I feel those that can find all(most or many) of the “gold nuggets” in a story have a great gift and much to share with others in solidarity.
I have not seen the movie yet, but am very much aware of the story. It disturbs me greatly because IMO it exemplifies the dangers of TBM’ers blind faith. For me this story is a call to a rational faith. Quote:Brigham Young rebuked Franklin Richards from the pulpit for authorizing the late start and for not ordering the parties to return back to safety (i.e., Florence, Nebraska) before it was too late.
Brigham Young charged Franklin Richards with “ignorance,” “mismanagement,” and “misconduct”(Journal of Discourse, Volume 4, pages 66-70). There is some dispute over whether Franklin Richards was a mere scapegoat for Brigham’s failed planning. Either way, The unmistakable import of Brigham Young’s sermon that day was that it’s better to trust a good man who knows the path and has experience than an Apostle who doesn’t — a message that bears emphasis among those who wish to treat statements on evolution by church leadership as definitive. (Journal of Discourse, Volume 4, pages 66-70) Roy wrote:One of my interests is in storytelling, particularly of historical events. I find it fascinating what stories are told which ones are left out, which ones are modified and which ones are completely invented.
I read some commentary by Henry Louis Gates Jr. on “12 years a slave” and it made me think of this thread and historical representations in general:
Quote:No story tells itself on its own; even “true” stories have to be recreated within the confines and various formal possibilities for expression offered by a given medium, and that includes both feature films and documentaries, as well. Both of these films offer compelling interpretations of the horrific experience of human bondage, even if their modes of storytelling are diametrically opposed, offering viewers—and especially teachers and students—a rare opportunity to consider how the ways that an artist chooses to tell a story—the forms, points of view and aesthetic stances she or he selects—affects our understanding of its subject matter…..
Some will ask, Is everything in the film version of 12 Years a Slave accurate? My response is yes and no, for the truth is Solomon Northup himself changed some of the facts, including his birth and marriage dates, the spellings of certain names and, in an early play version, he even made the character of Samuel Bass more of a “Yankee” than a Canadian. This points to a deeper truth about African-American culture, and one I have written about throughout my career: that signifying or black signification, by its very nature, is an act of repetition and revision, of invocation and improvisation, and so to me, the far more relevant question to ask of any representation of 12 Years a Slave is not whether it is strictly factual but whether it is true.
To this I say yes, without question, and, in viewing it, we each must test our own commitment to freedom, just as Northup’s audiences were tested (though with much higher stakes). As the film rolls on, we are the ones willing him first to survival and then to freedom. We are the ones fearing for his life. We are the ones confined as he was confined. In our hopes, we are the ones emulating the petitioners and affidavit-signers who testified to his status as a free man, including his wife, Anne. And in following his story to the end, we are the ones sitting in the shadows determined to reclaim what has been lost, to the extent that this is possible, having been robbed of 12 years of one’s life.
:thumbup:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.