September Dawn
Tags: revenge, historical, murder, flashback

Plot synopsis:
The fictional love story between Emily Hudson, the daughter of the wagon train's pastor, and Jonathan Samuelson, the son of the local Mormon bishop, plays out against the build-up to the tragedy itself. The film begins with the deposition of Mormon leader Brigham Young. The Fancher party is then depicted crossing Utah on its way to California. The party encounters a group of Mormon militiamen, who advise them to move on. Bishop Jacob Samuelson defuses the situation but is disturbed to learn that the Fanchers have a woman wearing men's clothing and are delivering racehorses to California to be used in gambling. He is also upset to learn that some are from Missouri, whose inhabitants he blames for the death of Joseph Smith and for persecuting Mormons. He instructs his sons Jonathan and Micah to keep an eye on them.
A scene follows in which the pastor for the Fancher party praises God for their deliverance, while Bishop Samuelson thanks God for delivering the gentiles (non-Mormons) into their hands for divine punishment. As the Mormon leadership prepares to defend Utah from an attack by the federal government, Samuelson's son, Jonathan, develops a relationship with the daughter of the pastor, Emily. At the direction of Brigham Young, local Mormons are directed to massacre the gentiles using their allies, the Paiute Indians. By pointing to a rival Indian tribe as their mutual enemy, John D. Lee, the adopted son of Brigham Young, convinces the Paiutes that it is God's will to kill the migrants. Jonathan objects to the plan, which his father has just conveyed to the local Mormons, and is imprisoned by his father. Jonathan has become disillusioned by the Mormon faith not only because of the planned massacre, but because of what he allowed to happen to his mother. In a flashback earlier in the film, Jonathan remembers that his mother was ordered away by a senior religious leader who took her as is his wife; she returned to get her children, for which she was executed in full view of Jonathan and his father.
The Fancher party repels the Indian attack, and the local Mormons are forced to complete the mission themselves. The Mormon militia under the command of John D. Lee is ordered to kill anyone who is old enough to talk. John D. Lee offers to lead the Fancher party to safety; however, they lead them instead to an ambush in which they are all killed. Escaping his imprisonment, Jonathan arrives too late to save them and his lover, Emily, who is killed by his father. John Lee is executed for his role in the massacre in 1877 and Brigham Young denies any knowledge or involvement.

Review: I have been hearing many bad reviews for this movie, panning it for a perceived 'blanket condemnation of the Mormon Church.' What so many of these reviews refuse to take into consideration is the actual character of territorial Utah in the 1850s and the rest of the historical evidence.The plain simple fact is that Utah at the time WAS full of zealous religiosity.
This movie is in NO WAY a blanket condemnation of Mormonism, though it IS a condemnation of the Mormon Church *IN THE 1850s.* To say that this movie portrays them like "homesteading Nazis," is completely unfair.John Voight's performance gives a perfect example of the sort of character found in Mormon authorities in the period, while his sons show us some of the various types of dissension, the outright rejection, and the horrified self-loathing obedience.
Whether or not Brigham Young was directly involved in the events is up for debate, but there can be no doubt that the teachings he espoused and the environment they engendered were a significant part of what caused the massacre.In short, most of the negative reviews come either from Mormons or people who have very little background with regards to the history of Territorial Utah.
I will certainly do some historical research to see where the alleged biases come in, but I have a feeling the movie will certainly not be quite the fiction that some of the posters have made it out to be.My actual rating would have been a 6 or a 7 at best, but since there are people (I would assume those in the Mormon community) trying to bring the rating down simply because it shows a group of their people in an unfavourable light, I gave it a 10 to balance it out..
There is doubt as to who exactly was involved, but the movie does a very good job of presenting the historical facts as they are known today.
That the film's hero (jonathan) had no idea how people outside his lds group think and that the wagon train (illustrated by Emily) had no understanding of the Mormon's culture or paranoia is very believable (as the Mormon's were still a quite new group).
It does a good job of portraying the distrust the Mormons had of the rest of the nation, including the government, of their resentment toward Missouri and toward the mob that murdered Joseph Smith in Illinois, and the failure of the government that had him in its custody.Although the movie was shot in Alberta, the scenery is not unlike that in the Mountain Meadows area, except, of course, for the lake or river in which the young emigrant was able to bathe.
After seeing the movie I then read as much as I could find on the actual event before writing this comment.This movie is a hollywoodised version of events that did happen, no one is disputing that it happened, the comments on this site who have slammed the movie and given it 1 star seem to be those who are either Mormons or Mormon sympathisers who don't like the truth being openly told.Without the hollywoodised love story and the "too" clean travelers the movie seemed to follow accounts of what happened reasonably accurately in my eyes.From what I have read about the event I think the makers were right in making it look like a cover up by the Mormons, we have to remember that religious leaders had great say in how things are done in societies of the time, and unfortunately still do today.As has happened many times in history, a scapegoat is often used to cover up the misdeeds of those in higher authority.See the movie with an open mind then do the research and make up your own mind about who should have been punished here.I give this movie an 10 out of 10 to counter all the misguided 1s that have been given, but my true rating would be a 6..
I highly recommend that you watch this film and do some research on the massacre so you can develop your own conclusions.Some of the people that have written very critical comments of this movie are clearly biased and will not look at the facts.
The film is billed as a Romeo and Juliet story set against the historical backdrop of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
I walked into the film willing to agree with its premise--that Brigham Young was involved in planning the killings--but I found the portrayal of every Mormon as a demon and every settler as a saint to be over the top.
Just the simple fact of how they (film makers) portrayed Young and failed to mention this letter would have changed my fillings of the movie and of the production staff.
I am feeling so much better now that I've seen September Dawn, an "inspired-by-true-events" fiction about the massacre in 1857 of Christian "immigrants" on the Mormon Utah land as they passed through to California.
"Inspired by" the true events of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857, in which 122 "gentiles" were exterminated, Almost every scene is larded with clichés, not the least being the shameless ones with the Romeo and Juliet knockoffs who exclaim more than once never to have "met anyone like you" before, or the progressive woman who wears pants and a gun who doesn't like the current rest on Mormon land and is the clear choice for hatred by the mad Mormon, Jacob Samuelson, played with scene hunger by Jon Voight (his bad-guy goatee is hilarious).That the massacre occurred is not in doubt.
Addition of fictionalized love story doesn't water down true events of America's first act of religious terrorism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre..
Although considerable artistic license was taken in the creation/addition of the fictitious pioneer love story, the dramatization of the events surrounding the Mountain Meadows Massacre of the ill-fated Fancher-Baker wagon train pulls no punches nor waters down the horror of the events that actually occurred on that other September 11th (of 1857).
I am an avid "History Buff" and know a great deal about the Civil War as well as the Mountain Meadows Massacre.First off, let me tell you that not only was this film historically accurate, it was beautifully shot and magnificently crafted.
Even though the Mormon Church will never accept the fact that Brigham Young was involved with the Massacre, the very least they could do is offer an apology to the Pauite Nation for laying false blame for over a century.Do you think it is a coincidence that the LDS Church has released their version of these historical events only now, a hundred and fifty years after the fact?This is the movie that has caused the Mormon Church of Today to address the sins of the past.This movie will open your eyes and change your hearts..
September Dawn tells the story of the historic events that led to the massacre of the Fancher-Baker wagon train at Mountain Meadows in Utah on September 11, 1857.
Without realizing their doom, they were led like lambs to a slaughter by the Mormon militia.The facts of these events have been buried far too long and I appreciate director Christopher Cain for giving voice to those victims who were so brutally murdered that September day.
Then again, Hollywood doesn't seem smart enough to disguise a critique of modern radical Islam as a movie about radical 1850's Mormonism!Jon Voight and Terence Stamp give powerful performances and the actors that play the teenage characters are good as well.
As a result of these and perhaps other factors that incited the local Latter-day Saint leaders and settlers to react, the massacre occurred and 120 people died.Why don't the filmmakers even bother to mention that if not for Missouri Governor Bogg's Extermination Order authorizing the murder of all Mormons -- they would probably have never been in the Utah territory to begin with?.
Its the reviews I actually read that made it seem more real ..WHY WOULD PEOPLE GET SO ANGRY ITS JUST A MOVIE HMMMM makes you wonder, seems like the truth hurts..Anyways back to the movie it was very well made and kept you on your seat..The actors were great and so was the story it was a sad moment in history thats brought to life ..It should never be forgotten,if these innocent people were killed by those cowards.
The LDS church today insists that Brigham Young had no advance knowledge of the attack, though most historians say that at the least his rhetoric contributed to the atmosphere that led to it.Jon Voight is very convincing (he should have been nominated for Best Actor) as the diabolical, yet pious Mormon Bishop.
Perhaps we will never know exactly whether Young was directly responsible.My theory is that this film is actually a well-disguised attack on, not Mormon, but Islamic radicalism.
Big names of in the business refuse to comment on this film honestly, because this movie has a negative portrayal of the early mormon religion.
The fact remains that people in the olden days can be irrational and barbaric, and not to mention a mormon member has its hand on the massacre.That aside, the movie has done its job of screen performance.
His operatic nonsense accomplishes something I don't think he intended: By treating the Mormons with such laughable contempt, he actually made me feel sorry for them." Here's an excerpt from Wayne Milton's article: "The movie plays down these wider politics in order to beat us over the head with a refrain: Young and his minions, save a lone scapegoat, never answered for their crimes." Unlike the recent PBS documentary "The Mormons" this film ignores history and rather relies on the blown-up tails of conspiracy theorists and "Kill Homos" evangelical traveling bands.
It details the long covered-up massacre at Mountain Meadows, Utah, on September 11, 1857, where a group of Mormons murdered well over a hundred settlers traveling from Arkansas to California.
Cain, I believe, purposely slants all the facts in getting to the bottom line or getting to the historical tragedy portrayed at the end of the movie and takes theatrical license to purposely create animosity towards Mormons in general, because of whatever reason.
If this film was made about a like incident set for today and one replaced the Mormons with Islamists, would we really be interested in their side as why they have killed so many people?
Religious fanatics exist everywhere: Mormons in 1857, Christians in the Crusades, Irish Catholics & Protestants, Muslim fundamentalists; no time in history has been without the fanatics, and they exist today.It has been said that more people have died in the name of religion than in all the wars.
Religious fanatics exist everywhere: Mormons in 1857, Christians in the Crusades, Irish Catholics & Protestants, Muslim fundamentalists; no time in history has been without the fanatics, and they exist today.It has been said that more people have died in the name of religion than in all the wars.
(Children who survived the massacre were taken into Mormon homes to be raised as Mormons, but later retrieved by the U.S. army, an interesting part of the story that isn't told in the movie.) The movie is memorable mostly in that it depicts a shocking piece of American history, and Jon Voight does a great job in his role as a Mormon bishop..
If a viewer doesn't have an in-depth understanding of Mormon Doctrine and History the film will seem Mormon-bashing.The film presents Wagon Train members as wholesome "good guys" and Mormons of that era as "Bad Guys." I am descended from the Mormons of that era (going back to 1831) and my dad taught church doctrine much the same as the Mormon Bishop in the movie.
Those people who say this movie is totally fact are probably anti mormon and want to say anything to make them feel that we are an evil people.I know for a fact that Brigham Young tried to send a warning to these mislead saints to calm down.
In summary, I think it's a thought provoking movie that will make people actually want to do a bit of research on the true events of Mountain Meadows..
As for September Dawn, the movie was a dreadfully inaccurate portrayal of a tragic time and sad period in Mormon, US and Utah history.
After watching this movie, I'm trying to think of what the film makers were trying to do other than bash Mormons.The film depicts a controversial event in Mormon history, the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
One of the tragic coincidences of history: Since the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened on 9/11 in 1857, I could just imagine a last line of the movie:"The date September 11th will live in infamy."But it would probably be laughed off the screen.Pardon my finding humor about such a horrible thing.Even funnier than that is that the site won't accept my comment because there weren't enough lines.Even mentioning that didn't enable the comment.
any one seeking the truth about the events depicted in this movie should look up a book called "Mountain Meadows Massacre", it was not written by a Mormon author, so it takes a completely unbiased looked at the situation, and completely explains what actually happened.
Scott Renshaw of the Charleston City PaperOne of the flagship IMDb user reviews for September dawn is entitled, "Leanr (sic) the history before commenting." I couldn't agree more.To that end, and in the spirit of equal time and hearing both sides of the story, I am providing the following links so that those genuinely interested in what happened; the corresponding historical, social, and religious context; and how the LDS Church feels about it, can read it from an unfiltered source.
The awful order of killing those of the wagon train; men, woman and children.The film depicts this and its important to know this, because it is little anti-Mormon.
This film doesn't purport to be historically accurate, as far as I know, so I am not going to comment on the way the producers used the history except to say that it reminds me of The DaVinci Code applied to Mormons.
The movie has such an obvious agenda, and I can't believe the makers of this film received a grant from the Alberta Film Development Program.Some people may think they are researching the facts from the internet, but there is so much misinformation on the internet posted by so many 'anti' Mormon groups, that in my opinion make these sources unreliable.I think the story of the Meadow Massacres could make a fascinating movie.
While the Mormon Bishop is nice to the wagon train in person, he is bent on their destruction when with his community.The historical record and reality of the Mountain Meadows Massacre is easily available to all who are interested and clearly shows a much different and far more nuanced story.
It tried to set up the story and the events that lead to the tragic events, but loosely fictional enough to tick off some Mormons obviously.Historically, yes the account of the Mountain Meadows Massacre seems pretty accurate, it does mention the Federal Government was going to be sending troops and that Brigham Young was ready to fight.
A fair and an unbiased recollection of history or historical events isn't what you will find but maybe, the story from a sensible relative of one of the massacred.The film does try to show some human side of the Mormons that were involved, through the love story and the character they portray as John D.
But in the end it seems to question the leadership (or lack of) in the Mormon church, who was at the time Brigham Young and the local bishop (John Voigt)in the film.**I would highly recommend watching the 2004 documentary: BURYING THE PAST: LEGACY OF THE MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE**and reading the Mormon church's September 2007 addressing the events, in Mormon run Deseret News.
I saw a screening of this film recently, and the most fitting word to describe it is "interesting." This film is a *fictionalized* account of the Mountain Meadows massacre by the Mormons and Native Americans in Utah Territory on September 11, 1857.
What you take away is really up to you, whether you see it as a love story, historical piece, attack on the Mormon faith, or simply for what it literally is: a film..
It's not a matter of good people turning bad, but rather a boring straight line from expected evil to actual one.Jon Voight, playing the Mormon bishop zealot who instigated the massacre, is mean, bitter, murderous.
It is understandable, however, that many viewers will be offended since every Mormon is honestly portrayed as a fanatic.Regardless of whether Brigham Young was involved in the incident, the Mountain Meadows Massacre still resulted in the deaths of innocent people at the hands of Mormon extremists, who are no better or worse than fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.
Being a former Mormon (temple endowed) I can tell you though that the movie is generally pretty accurate concerning Mormon history and what Brigham Young said about blood atonement.
This movie takes an historical fact and skewers it so that the Mormons are ideologically bad, rigid people and the all the poor "Christians" want to do is go to California and set up vineyards and freeways.
Mormons that I know are good, honest, family people that would never attack a wagon train or take the time out of their life to attack another religion as the screenwriter have done in this laughable movie.
The film, September Dawn directed by Christopher Cain tells the story how a group of religious intolerance Mormons end up attacking the Baker-Fancher wagon train.
The film felt lost in time as it jump around way too much in history, as it start out with in 1877 as Utah governor Brigham Young (Terence Stamp) presents his side of the story of the events of 1857.