“Six days in August” needs an audience

[drumdude]

“Witnesses” made very little at the box office. So little genuine (not sycophants buying multiple tickets but not showing up) as to make it an irrelevance. “Six Days” will follow that pattern. A theatre release is counter productive if “reaching a large audience” is the priority. A YouTube release would reach an exponentially bigger audience than will ever be achieved any other way. But it won’t be released on YouTube because Dan wants the vanity of an opening night and to say he produced movies that had movie theatre runs. It’s not about the audience, it’s all about Dan. If it weren’t then both “Witnesses” and “Six Days” would be available for free to everyone who cared to stream them.

The Church hasn’t even bothered to promote either film, nor link to them on its website or social media pages. In fact, the Church has ensured there’s no connection whatsoever. Which tells us something I guess.

Still no published financially accounting for “Witnesses”, despite it being promised. How embarrassing must the losses be to renege on a public commitment like that?

Excellent points.

There have been many small Christian movies in movie theaters over the years. Like Witnesses, they’re basically straight-to-video quality. I can remember a creationist one which happened to be in 3D. Dan touted a near death experience one. And there have been many about the life of Christ. They do just ok in small towns, appealing to your average Christian moviegoer. But a movie about Mormons? I can’t imagine any small towns outside of Utah being interested.

[malkie]

Surely there's nothing wrong with misleading the theater owners into committing to showings based on artificially inflated opening weekend numbers, right? /s

If lying for the lord is OK, then perhaps lying for an apologist isn't a big sin. /s

I wonder if anyone has advised the theater owners that there are plans afoot to cheat them.

Theater owners are a fairly savvy bunch. It's not hard to see how poorly "Witnesses" did, and predict that "August" will do much worse.

Regardless, the intent appears to be a poor example of dealing honestly the owners.

[Kishkumen]

I would see it opening day if I could. Unfortunately, I am too far away. Count me as a super fan. I love the fact these movies are being made. I don’t care that I probably don’t agree with the exact interpretation of history therein. I am no fan of “Brother Brigham.” But, darn it, these things are good fun. I like fun. I like historical movies, and this is the history my ancestors lived through. I like to be transported back to that time in some way.

Thanks to the filmmakers for making this happen.

[Marcus]

Given a recent post by someone stating that they may back an opposite opinion here and there, apparently just for an amusing run at contrarianism, I'm going to call that sarcasm. Brilliant, even.

A historian not caring whether the history is correct in a historical movie, because "darn it, these things are good fun" made me laugh out loud.

[Moksha]

A historian not caring whether the history is correct in a historical movie, because "darn it, these things are good fun" made me laugh out loud.

It is like flinging a cow at the English with a trebuchet. Better than shooting the bull.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

A historian not caring whether the history is correct in a historical movie, because "darn it, these things are good fun" made me laugh out loud.

It is like flinging a cow at the English with a trebuchet. Better than shooting the bull.

Are you suggesting Dan’s movie is a comedy?

[Moksha]

Are you suggesting Dan’s movie is a comedy?

It would be nice if it had a scene that could make Kishkumen and the rest of the audience giggle. I guess Dr. Peterson wants it to be a solemn faith-promoting story that evokes LDS tears at some point.

Dr. Scratch's mention of a Keven Bacon-like Brigham Young seemed spot on. If he made some Foot Loose moves at some point, it might elicit some giggles. I am not sure how old you would need to be to pick up on that. I remember telling my daughter about that movie being filmed at the Lehi roller mills, but she had never seen it.

[Kishkumen]

Given a recent post by someone stating that they may back an opposite opinion here and there, apparently just for an amusing run at contrarianism, I'm going to call that sarcasm. Brilliant, even.

A historian not caring whether the history is correct in a historical movie, because "darn it, these things are good fun" made me laugh out loud.

Spoken like a true non-historian.

If you go into these things expecting historical accuracy, you will almost always be disappointed. Keep in mind that films about Ancient Rome are always full of anachronisms. Ancient historians learn to enjoy the movies and are just grateful that their subject is getting popular attention. If we got too worked up about Marcus Aurelius being depicted as intent upon restoring the Republic and the like, we would miss the bits where the filmmakers actually listened to our colleagues advising them. Film is usually entertainment first.

[Kishkumen]

Double post.

[I Have Questions]

I thought this was relevant…

Carnes, who published a collection of essays titled Past Imperfect: History according to the Movies, received push back from Stone and other directors for his historian’s-eye-critique of their films, causing him to wonder why hotshot directors would even care about what an elbow-patched academic historian thought about their inaccuracies. Then he realized what was at stake was greater than the directors’ esthetic reputation. The issue, above all, was money. “If audiences suspect that a movie is ‘unhistorical’ or ‘inaccurate,’ they will be less likely to surrender to its vicarious magic; they will not believe that they are reliving the lives of real people.”

https://daily.jstor.org/getting-histori ... torians-2/

So it seems there’s an imperative to get the main “blocks” of a story recounting historical events materially accurate, even if some poetic licence is taken here and there. To not do so damages the films credibility. The biopic of Steve Jobs (the one with Fassbender) relates the main blocks of his story, his relationships, materially accurate in their essence. But the director chose to set those building blocks within the setting of backstage to all his main stage appearances - which clearly isn’t factual history. The film stands as a good one because it doesn’t take a side on Jobs. It just recounts how he was as a person in his relationships.

Witnesses doesn’t do that, and Six Days won’t either. So in terms of the key block of who the Witnesses were, and who Brigham Young was, as people - how they treated others etc, the Producers and Directors have chosen to “whitewash” history and produce propaganda instead. That decision damages the films credibility, and damages its success at the box office.