I think the movie challenges us to (re)consider many of the ironies and inconsistencies that we uniformly accept within our church culture at times. It seems Dutcher has to hit us over the head several times in the film about how myopic we can be in our view of the world. A few examples worth considering:

A) The scene when Elder Farrell is rushed to the hospital in a near unconscious state following his suicide attempt, and one of the Elders is about to administer the blessing but gets hung up with protocol and asks “what is Elder Farrell’s middle name?” as Elder Farrell’s life hangs in the balance.

B) Early in the film we have a dramatic contrast between “a straight arrow” Elder Farrell and Elder Lozano who, though unconventional, seems to portray the greater heroic qualities of the missionary pair, even if his tactics and methods don’t always comply with the “white bible.”

I think Dutcher is taking a frontal assault on outward religious piety that is overly focused on rigid rules based behavior. Behavior which blinds the follower from providing real relief and compassion (eg. administering relief to the drunk preacher and whether the mission appt should be used).

C) Return with Honor. Farrell’s dad who would prefer his son return in a casket then dishonorobly from his mission is another over the top paradigm the viewer must confront.

D) The neighbor actress who is abandonned and effectively disowned by their outwardly very religious parents who are ashamed of her whoredoms. Dutcher certainly paints with a very harsh brush the excessively religious crowd who will abandon their own offspring as a consequence for their moral shortcomings.

In the end, it seems Dutcher is asking for greater charity and love in whatever non-conventional methods of expression this may take form. The overly proscribed rules based decision tree of conduct and morality can only take us so far, and ultimately the heroic qualities as exemplified by Elder Lozono will only be realized when these rules are transcended by the circumstances and requirements of the moment.

Dutcher seems to be telegraphing his own future and inner struggles he wrestles with as he tries to balance the requirements of his faith and belief system with his own spiritual journey in life.

I liked the ending when all of the key actors in the film gather around the nativity scene and one by one bow before the Christ child as if to suggest that all of us regardless of our circumstance and background are reliant upon the tender mercies of our Redeemer. Regardless of our individual states of grace, we all are deficient and have but one source of redemption.

But it seems like your argument is actually “because Elder Ferrell broke specific mission rules regarding members of the opposite sex (e.g., alone time, holding hands) one thing quickly led to another and he slept with Holly,” which makes more sense, and which I completely agree with, because the one can very easily lead to the other, especially if Satan already attached some of his flaxen cords long before the situation even started — as was apparently the case in the movie.

Side note: I’d certainly never be mistaken for a straight-arrow type, but I have had to correct other missionaries (during and after my own mission) about getting too close to girls. Even if it doesn’t lead to sleeping with them, the mere hint of the appearance of impropriety is a bad thing all the way around, and breaking those rules will certainly get you into trouble — if not with the girl, then definitely with me. *scowl*

Jon

It seems to me that the stigma of coming home from a mission “dishonored,” with a history of suicidal tendencies would find greater prejudice among members of the church than a former gang member. Dutcher knows this. He is challenging us at the core of our culture. Let us forgive even the dishonored, for are we not all in some way dishonored?

I see your interpretation of the movie’s message (both it’s intended message and it’s perceived message) as somewhat too narrow and off track. Stick with me, though in my response, because my tone isn’t really as adversarial as my first sentence implies.

I’ll start by saying that the movie title (States of Grace) is the most important key to understanding Dutcher’s intention. I’ll return to this point later.

Dutcher did build in a large dose of ambiguity into the situations and characters. Dutcher’s intentions — or my interpretation of them — probably should not be limited to a simple numbered list, but for the sake of conversation, I’m going to do that anyway. Among (my interpretation of) his intentions are these:

1) To present a series of complex scenarios of moral choices with no clear “right” and “wrong” answers. The “spirit vs letter of the law” dilemma is one of these, but only one. For example, Carl’s moral conflicts are rich for analysis and have little, if anything, to do with spirit/letter debates.

2) To show that the outcomes of those choices are sometimes complex and problematic. In fact, as has been pointed out, doing the “most right” thing may even lead to further moral dilemmas. The way Dutcher presents the act of helping the homeless man, I think it is a reasonable conclusion to say that Dutcher wants us to at least consider the idea that helping the homeless man may in fact be the “most right” thing to do, but of course it was this very act which opened the door to further problems when they needed to get Holly involved to help with this man. Dutcher isn’t saying “I told you so: this is what happens when you try to justify bending the mission rules.” He is trying to raise questions in our mind though. What if they hadn’t helped the homeless man? That would have been wrong (by one set of standards). Yet now that the movie is over, we know that this “right” act incurred a cascade of unpleasant and unintended negative consequences. In other words, Dutcher is painting in as many shades of gray as he possibly can. He seems quite intent on disproving blacks and whites, absolutes and certainties. The fact that the original good action led to Elder Ferrell’s bad action is a manifestation of this attempt to paint grays (see point 3 below)

3) One of Dutcher’s intention definitely seems to be to call into question Elder Ferrell’s worldview. Elder Ferrell thought he had things figured out. Lusting after girls, especially on the mission was wrong. He knew that, but it was clearly something he had internal struggles with, as pointed out in response #15 above. He grew up in a home where disobedience meant shame. Intense shame. He feared this shame possibly more than anything else. He wanted to honor his father, who Elder Ferrell says is a “very good man” even when Elder Lozano basically says Elder Ferrell’s dad is an idiot for saying that it would be better if Elder Ferrell came home in a casket rather than to come home dishonored. Dutcher wants us to see that Elder Ferrell’s father is unreasonable, and simply wrong. But Dutcher also wants us to see that Elder Ferrell holds his father in high esteem. No doubt his father is a man in good standing in the church, possibly with high levels of responsibility. Elder Ferrell recognizes a conflict between his own weaknesses and the man his father wants him to be. Elder Ferrell wants to be that man. He tries very hard to be that man. But it is evident that the expectations are externally imposed. Elder Ferrell doubts he can be the man his father wants him to be. In a moment of weakness — which happens rather quickly, but not as quickly as some posts have suggested (I think it happens over more than 48 hours, but that’s kind of beside the point) — Elder Ferrell gives in precisely because the expectations were externally imposed on him. He feared not living up to them, so in a self-fulfilling prophesy, he failed to live up to them. Elder Ferrell’s worldview was askew. It wasn’t all his fault, but it was his undoing. By contrast, Elder Lozano had “been there, done that.” His temptations were of a different sort at this point in the game.

4) The most important point that I think Dutcher is trying to make is that we all need grace. Not just the gun-toting gangbaner Carl (who is an accessory to murder by the end of the film, even though he didn’t pull the trigger). Not just the former gang member Lozano. Not just the girl who, in a period of weakness consented to act in pornographic movies. Not just the drunk preacher on the street. But even the Mormon missionary who breaks mission rules, and even the Mormon missionary who breaks the most taboo of mission rules: fornication. Elder Ferrell broke that rule, and immediately hated himself. He felt such remorse that he no longer had hope for his own soul. He knew he would be sent home and could not bear the thought of seeing his father, of disgracing his father. His fear brought to mind his father’s words about coming home in a casket. In an act of despair, he attempted to do just that. After the suicide attempt, it is Holly who attempts to bring him back. At this point, he can hardly even look at her because of the role she played in his now broken life. She was on a path of recovery and spiritual rebirth, yet he now views her as little more than the reason for his downfall. This is of course unfair to her. His suicide attempt risked not only his own life, but threw into chaos the lives of many people who were connected to him.

All of these people, with all of their different circumstances are in different states of grace. Some have further to go than others … or do they? Is it worse to commit fornication as a missionary, or is it worse to tell a son that it would be better to come home in a casket than to commit fornication? Is it worse to almost kill someone (but then not do it, in a supremely difficult moment of moral confusion), or is it worse to break the mission rules by bringing in a homeless man into a missionary’s apartment?

I think the film argues that while there may be different levels of need, and people may be in different states of grace, the same exact need is there for all of us. We all need forgiveness, and we all need grace.

To get lost in discussions of whose sin was worse, or who would have a harder time in church disciplinary counsels is a complete distraction from the theme of the film. In fact, it basically refutes the theme of the film.

Do we not all need grace? Is not 100% grace necessary for even the smallest infractions? Then who cares who would be excommunicated and who wouldn’t? Who cares what the disciplinary councils would say? Christ is at the bar of judgment, and his standard is holistic, all-encompassing, complete, and perfect. He will hold us accountable for everything, and he will grant us everything… contingent up on his grace, which we all need in equal measure.

“‘Everything about the film said that real charity and real compassion also opened up opportunities for real temptations.’
It is perhaps the greatest irony of mortality that we can’t serve God without mixing with his children – that in order to emulate Jesus’ actual life we need to risk all kinds of temptations and dangers and judgmental perceptions. Frankly, imo, that’s perhaps the greatest failure in many members’ lives – living too safely away from the deepest pains and suffering and temptations around us and losing the chance to mourn with those that mourn the most and comfort those who stand in the greatest need of comfort.”

I haven’t seen the film and this may or may not be a good point in the comments to interject my feelings….but I just have to comment that this statement by Ray sums up how I feel about “living my religion” and that the greatest joys I have found have come from stepping outside of my safe little box and comfort zone and learning about the true struggles (and victories) of my fellow imperfect brothers and sisters. It is much more challenging to live my principles and beliefs when I interact with all of God’s children….not just the ones that are “safe” or “worthy”. I hope that someday my sins and imperfections will be judged with mercy not only because of the incredible power of the atonement, but because I was willing to reach out to others in the mercy and compassion that I hope to receive.

I’m pretty sure we’re meant to see some connection.

Should a missionary use his shirt as an emergency dressing to staunch the flow of blood from another’s serious wound? God forbid he should think the dignity of his office is worth more than the life of his brother! But if another piece of cloth is at hand the necessity is gone. Should a missionary take off his shirt because it is a hot day and he’s a bit uncomfortable? No way.

Moral choices always involve a conflict of values. The most poignant are the moral dilemmas that pit two goods (or two evils) against each other and leave none but the two choices. This is almost always a false choice because there are usually more options available, but an artist wants the sharp focus of the two choices and as the god of the world of his/her creation we accept that to a degree. In real life with a broad spectrum of choices – and less certainty of the outcome.

Again, I’m with Matt on this one. Farrell’s sin is so over the top that it undercuts the forced dichotomy between him and Lozano. (e.g. letter vs. spirit) I don’t buy the idea that his problem stems from an overly rigid adherence to the letter. He’s got a serious personal problem–we think. But there’s ambiguity (of the wrong sort) because Farrell’s character is torn between serving said dichotomy and following his rational trajectory. Basically, Farrell needs therapy not grace.

What was plainly and clearly displayed was that Elder Ferrell had a weakness with the opposite sex. We saw it over and over again, with his gazing at the cute girls, turning around every time one walked by, lingering WAY too long in Holly’s doorway (alone!), smiling just a little too long on the balcony (alone!), talking with her by the door (alone!), jerking back instinctively and then holding her hand.

Everyone has different weaknesses; this was his. When Satan saw a weak seam in Elder Farrell’s character, he rent it wide open — just like he does with everyone else. It had nothing to do with him breaking the overly broad “Mission Rules,” rather it was his nonchalance in his contact with Holly, which was related to his personal weakness, that caused his downfall.

Claiming that the catch-all “breaking mission rules” was the open doorway to imminent excommunicable sin is not a message the movie portrayed. (It almost sounds like your argument/interpretation of the movie is “once you break a mission rule, regardless of which one, you are doomed to serious sin, and you have no further choice in the matter — you’re screwed once you stumble!”) In fact, the film went out of its way to show, in the first half, that breaking a rule here or there can create good (which I’m sure caused MTC-types to have hissy-fits). The message in the second half seemed to have less to do with “breaking the rules,” but rather warned viewers of relaxing their guards in front of personal weaknesses.

That’s how I saw it anyway.

Jon