Kish's "Six Days" Review
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2025 1:54 pm
Based on critical reviews of this film, I thought I would dislike it. I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it quite a bit. I give it three out of five stars. Three stars, to me, means that this is a film that is enjoyable to watch, and that it has a lot going for it, but it is not great. This is not incredible cinema. It does not reach the potential that such a story holds. Indeed, I think it is held back more than a little by its clear agenda--to support continued apostolic control of the LDS Church.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that is by any means a sinister objective. It is in fact pretty milquetoast. After the assassination of Joseph Smith, the LDS apostles, with Brigham Young as their president and clear leader, seized control of the LDS Church. And, had they not done so, the LDS Church would not exist today. The other alternatives to apostolic control at the time were inferior for one reason or another. Only the apostles had the ability to provide firm leadership with a forward-facing stance. William Marks was a good man, but the apostles offered a strong, united group that was focused on missionary work, which would be the future of Mormonism, instead of Nauvoo.
So, as propaganda--in the neutral sense--the film is pretty effective. It did a pretty good job of making the case for this. What it lacks is intensity. The mood of the whole is gently pastoral. Even in scenes of violence, there is a distance that muffles the intensity and gives the viewer the feeling they are looking at a giant painted mural of history that is tenderly rendered. Mormon history was very intense, chaotic, and full of intrigue at the time. But the way all of this is handled in the film is as more of a grudging admission. I applaud the filmmakers for not hiding the complications, but they do neuter them and, unfortunately, the drama to boot.
A person who is not sold on the LDS version of events cannot help--despite the film's best efforts--to come out of an informed viewing of the film with the clear impression that Joseph Smith was justifiably perceived to be a genuine threat because of polygamy, the small army at his beck and call, and his destruction of a newspaper press. Thomas Sharp is clearly depicted as a villain, but can we not understand his fight against the David Koreshes and Baghwan Rajneeshes of the world even if we do not approve of his methods? And, for all the heroic glow thrown around Joseph Smith in "Six Days," the man who betrays his wife to marry other women, wears military garb in front of the militia he controls, and destroys the press of a newspaper, is not, in the final analysis, a very sympathetic figure.
Indeed, it is because Joseph Smith is so disturbing that Brigham Young is almost a breath of fresh air. As Joseph Smith increasingly goes off the autocratic cult leader deep end, having long abandoned the jovial woodsman of the first encounter with Young, Young himself is far away, engaging in missionary work. Young is not depicted in military garb, crying about how unfair the world is to him, or moaning to his justifiably aggrieved spouse about how he just has to marry other women because God said so. That is Smith. No, Young is comparatively dignified, leaderly, and innocently cunning in bringing firm leadership to the saints to replace the dangerous extremes of Smith and Rigdon.
Whether the filmmakers intended it or not--and I suspect they may not have, this whitewashing of Young by slyly denigrating Smith and Rigdon is absolutely brilliant.
What I think was entirely intentional was film's effective argument for the charismatic leadership of Young. The film opens on a Young that most of us do not think about but who did in fact exist in history. Young is shown rescuing an oxcart by using the charismatic gift of tongues on oxen refusing to move over a giant root in front of the wheels of the cart on a muddy road. I have to say that this scene is jarring, and almost guffaw-provoking on its own, but when you reflect on the way that the film strategically punctuates the story, here and there, with Young's miraculous use of the gift of tongues to establish his authority in a way that is much more dramatic and uncomplicated than Smith's, you have to admire the genius of the filmmakers in once again making Brigham a much more attractive charismatic leader than the founder of the faith.
And this brings us to the greatest miracle of all--Brigham's transformation into Smith. That is what these glossolalia episodes build up to. Rigdon tries to seize control of the Church after Smith's assassination. With the support of Marks, he wants to get himself appointed guardian of the Church to carry forward Smith's vision. Rigdon holds a meeting where he makes his case, and once again adept casting ensures that the viewer clearly sees the right character as unsympathetic. The actor did a fine job, but he was obviously cast to look like a complete lightweight, whose tinny barks about Joseph are literally drowned out by gusts of wind. This scene was also brilliantly executed, in that it once again Smith and Rigdon are yoked together in a past that is, much to the relief of the audience, being mercifully left behind.
Which makes the transformation all the more fascinating. The film is not at all subtle about that. Paul Wuthrich, the actor who plays Smith, is suddenly standing at the podium, replacing John Donovan Wilson, the actor playing Young, who had but moments ago rushed up to answer Rigdon's proposal. The congregation gasps in awe because Young has become Smith! The mantle has passed to the true successor!
Does this work?
I say yes. It works if we understand that Six Days' Smith is not a fixed, uncomplicated character. He is, instead, a very troubling but charming figure whom others are nevertheless convinced is a prophet of God. The film carefully sifts two Smiths out of this complicated mess. There is the Smith who is tarred and feathered with Sidney Rigdon, and the Smith who engages in a good-spirited tree-felling competition with Brigham Young. Those are the key scenes that create the "Two Josephs." I can't help but think that this move was deliberate, even if the ramifications of it were not fully grasped by the filmmakers. The Sixth Day (And God created . . .) of August resolves the doppelgänger problem by whisking Sidney's Smith away in the wind, while manifesting Young's Smith beaming in pure, beatific joy through Young on the podium.
Through this relationship triangle of Rigdon, Smith, and Young, Six Days tells the story of how a cult led by a troubled charismatic figure transformed into a decent, reliable, and stable Church under firm, practical, and virtuous leadership--that was also demonstrably charismatic. The agenda is to get LDS viewers to strengthen their faith in the charismatic leadership of the apostles who run the LDS Church today. The old, bad Smith of Rigdon gives way to the saintly Smith of Young. For Six Days' Brigham, Smith is mostly important as the source of authority that he will wield with the apostles going forward. Young's charisma does not rely on Smith's at all. To the filmmakers, Weber had it all wrong. This is not institutional charisma in the Salt Lake Church. It is genuine charisma that operates independently of Smith's initial contribution, which the film largely writes out of the picture anyway.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think that is by any means a sinister objective. It is in fact pretty milquetoast. After the assassination of Joseph Smith, the LDS apostles, with Brigham Young as their president and clear leader, seized control of the LDS Church. And, had they not done so, the LDS Church would not exist today. The other alternatives to apostolic control at the time were inferior for one reason or another. Only the apostles had the ability to provide firm leadership with a forward-facing stance. William Marks was a good man, but the apostles offered a strong, united group that was focused on missionary work, which would be the future of Mormonism, instead of Nauvoo.
So, as propaganda--in the neutral sense--the film is pretty effective. It did a pretty good job of making the case for this. What it lacks is intensity. The mood of the whole is gently pastoral. Even in scenes of violence, there is a distance that muffles the intensity and gives the viewer the feeling they are looking at a giant painted mural of history that is tenderly rendered. Mormon history was very intense, chaotic, and full of intrigue at the time. But the way all of this is handled in the film is as more of a grudging admission. I applaud the filmmakers for not hiding the complications, but they do neuter them and, unfortunately, the drama to boot.
A person who is not sold on the LDS version of events cannot help--despite the film's best efforts--to come out of an informed viewing of the film with the clear impression that Joseph Smith was justifiably perceived to be a genuine threat because of polygamy, the small army at his beck and call, and his destruction of a newspaper press. Thomas Sharp is clearly depicted as a villain, but can we not understand his fight against the David Koreshes and Baghwan Rajneeshes of the world even if we do not approve of his methods? And, for all the heroic glow thrown around Joseph Smith in "Six Days," the man who betrays his wife to marry other women, wears military garb in front of the militia he controls, and destroys the press of a newspaper, is not, in the final analysis, a very sympathetic figure.
Indeed, it is because Joseph Smith is so disturbing that Brigham Young is almost a breath of fresh air. As Joseph Smith increasingly goes off the autocratic cult leader deep end, having long abandoned the jovial woodsman of the first encounter with Young, Young himself is far away, engaging in missionary work. Young is not depicted in military garb, crying about how unfair the world is to him, or moaning to his justifiably aggrieved spouse about how he just has to marry other women because God said so. That is Smith. No, Young is comparatively dignified, leaderly, and innocently cunning in bringing firm leadership to the saints to replace the dangerous extremes of Smith and Rigdon.
Whether the filmmakers intended it or not--and I suspect they may not have, this whitewashing of Young by slyly denigrating Smith and Rigdon is absolutely brilliant.
What I think was entirely intentional was film's effective argument for the charismatic leadership of Young. The film opens on a Young that most of us do not think about but who did in fact exist in history. Young is shown rescuing an oxcart by using the charismatic gift of tongues on oxen refusing to move over a giant root in front of the wheels of the cart on a muddy road. I have to say that this scene is jarring, and almost guffaw-provoking on its own, but when you reflect on the way that the film strategically punctuates the story, here and there, with Young's miraculous use of the gift of tongues to establish his authority in a way that is much more dramatic and uncomplicated than Smith's, you have to admire the genius of the filmmakers in once again making Brigham a much more attractive charismatic leader than the founder of the faith.
And this brings us to the greatest miracle of all--Brigham's transformation into Smith. That is what these glossolalia episodes build up to. Rigdon tries to seize control of the Church after Smith's assassination. With the support of Marks, he wants to get himself appointed guardian of the Church to carry forward Smith's vision. Rigdon holds a meeting where he makes his case, and once again adept casting ensures that the viewer clearly sees the right character as unsympathetic. The actor did a fine job, but he was obviously cast to look like a complete lightweight, whose tinny barks about Joseph are literally drowned out by gusts of wind. This scene was also brilliantly executed, in that it once again Smith and Rigdon are yoked together in a past that is, much to the relief of the audience, being mercifully left behind.
Which makes the transformation all the more fascinating. The film is not at all subtle about that. Paul Wuthrich, the actor who plays Smith, is suddenly standing at the podium, replacing John Donovan Wilson, the actor playing Young, who had but moments ago rushed up to answer Rigdon's proposal. The congregation gasps in awe because Young has become Smith! The mantle has passed to the true successor!
Does this work?
I say yes. It works if we understand that Six Days' Smith is not a fixed, uncomplicated character. He is, instead, a very troubling but charming figure whom others are nevertheless convinced is a prophet of God. The film carefully sifts two Smiths out of this complicated mess. There is the Smith who is tarred and feathered with Sidney Rigdon, and the Smith who engages in a good-spirited tree-felling competition with Brigham Young. Those are the key scenes that create the "Two Josephs." I can't help but think that this move was deliberate, even if the ramifications of it were not fully grasped by the filmmakers. The Sixth Day (And God created . . .) of August resolves the doppelgänger problem by whisking Sidney's Smith away in the wind, while manifesting Young's Smith beaming in pure, beatific joy through Young on the podium.
Through this relationship triangle of Rigdon, Smith, and Young, Six Days tells the story of how a cult led by a troubled charismatic figure transformed into a decent, reliable, and stable Church under firm, practical, and virtuous leadership--that was also demonstrably charismatic. The agenda is to get LDS viewers to strengthen their faith in the charismatic leadership of the apostles who run the LDS Church today. The old, bad Smith of Rigdon gives way to the saintly Smith of Young. For Six Days' Brigham, Smith is mostly important as the source of authority that he will wield with the apostles going forward. Young's charisma does not rely on Smith's at all. To the filmmakers, Weber had it all wrong. This is not institutional charisma in the Salt Lake Church. It is genuine charisma that operates independently of Smith's initial contribution, which the film largely writes out of the picture anyway.