...and here's why...
By the end of the documentary I questioned his motives. He seemed to love being in front of the camera. He seemed narcissistic.
But the clincher was the way he ambushed his wife in front of the camera with the news that he was gay. He seemed to be so self-obsessed that what he did to his wife and children didn't matter.
ugh.
It was bad judgement to have a sex offender living in your house. I think his intentions were good but really, he was in way over his head when it came to letting all those men sleep in the church. Even if they didn't have convictions, that seems pretty risky.
shareAgreed. Even though I might agree that this individual's "sex crime" may have been only technically that, the political risk was far too high. He knew that, said so, then did it anyway.
shareI won't claim any sense of prescience regarding the revelation that comes late in the film, but I disliked him immensely from the start. He struck me as a smug jerk on a power trip who seeks to control the lives of others, and feels entitled to do so because it is all wrapped in a shroud of piety. It revealed itself, initially, in small ways.
I don't mind that he had rules about how the men could and couldn't use the building (e.g. the thing about spilling coffee, etc...) but there is a way to speak to people without denigrating them. We saw it in other ways --- him telling that one guy to get a haircut, for instance. There is a way to convey advice without belittling someone.
He also used a lot of the little verbal tricks that people use when talking badly about others. At one point, he was talking about one of the men who couldn't make a go of it in North Dakota. He says something like "I hate to use a word like failure, but so-and-so wasn't successful out here." If you don't want to say somebody failed, why qualify your statement with "I hate to use a word like failure?"
He clearly saw himself as being above others and I was thrilled when the two men gave him an earful in the 2nd half of the movie (not to mention the fact that he may be resigned to the same fate as the men he was claiming to want to help).
What a shame...now this movie has been spoiled for me. The only thing I can figure is this person has not been back in here to see that he posted a 'major' spoiler... by irm8 ยป Sun Nov 9 2014 08:30:45
shareWhile I agree with the overall sentiment that the OP should modify the header as a *spoiler* I don't understand the difficulty people have in pre-reading forums and being upset because it "spoiled the movie."
Words like "in the end..." or the mention of a major character or a lead in to a very strong and final judgement on a work might just indicate that you are about to get the low-down on the whole film. Just sayin'. Each of us are ultimately responsible for what we choose to read, so maybe some new movie-viewing habits? ;)
Just some friendly chatter from a fellow movie buff...
It's the guilt of the religion. He's atoning in overtime for the dirty feelings he believes he has. Nothing more, nothing less.
shareYeah. He admitted he was guilty for not quality time with his family as much as he should. We, including himself knows it's because he has a good/naive heart and a love for camera attention.
shareSeems to me in part he was hiding the "socially" unacceptable (sexual predators) because he related to their impulses. There were probably more than one I would suspicion..He also stated to the one of the others that he and him had more in common than he(overnighter) even realized. The movie being a movie under the title documentary gives us there viewpoint. But it seems that he was trying to help himself by excusing or giving others with pretty deep issues a little more understanding and help than a person that didn't have the guilt and or inclinations that "he certainly saw as wrong". Thereby putting himself and others that could or would be inclined to take advantage of innocent victims above reasonable concern and care for those he should be protecting.. One thing he has going for him though.. In his convictions he feels his actions were wrong as well as his inclinations towards homosexuality.. At least he is not trying to make something that he believes is wrong and believes is against Gods authority something that is not wrong.. It is much better to admit your actions "are" actually sin if you are convicted they are, rather than trying to manipulate that "wrong" into something that is "right" by his own convictions or his beliefs in what God says is wrong. Some may argue the point if he thought it was truly a Sin in God's eyes because he quoted breaking law number 6 which is adultury against a mate. I just wonder if that was conveniently (framed) that way by the writers to do exactly that.. Impose the thought that he didn't agree that homosexuality in itself was sin in Gods eyes.. That would be very pro-world progressive viewpoint in this point in history.. Thus my suspicions, well warranted I believe.. But, I haven't read the guys book or the book or know his actual beliefs as I have not vetted that out.. In any case.. I do agree.. SPOILER ALERT,, and the guy was self serving.. He even mentioned it himself. Again in real life I don't know if he did or didn't. .maybe someone does.
shareAll good points stringpickin
share[deleted]
spoiler alert
come on people, cut the man some slack, he did something gracious alot of people won't bother to just think about doing, so what if he might seem to love being in front of the camera? alot of us love being in front of the camera, but did we help so many people (if any) in our lifetimes? besides, he was as honest as possible about his flaws: his neglect of his family (which I can hardly blame him for given the burden he had to take helping others), his homosexuality (of course it's a flaw that counts only in religious context), ....
so what if he helped broken people because he himself is a broken man, at least he knew what it's like to be broken and tried to alleviate that for others, I think it's a bit noble thing to do, not narcissistic!
i liked the man's honesty, yeah he might have seemed a little "look at me" kinda guy in the film but I think he was looking for understanding more than he was looking for attention or fame or anything like that.
I just don't understand how his family gave up on him so easily ! he seemed like a good nurturing father, yeah he made mistakes (he has little or no control on) but that can be forgivable I think, how can they give up on the man who fed them, clothed them and raised them! it's cruel.
Yep qahtanaj_85 sums it up greatly.
shareI agree with qahtanaj_85 --- when's the last time anyone here did anything for complete strangers in need?
share[deleted]
Yes there was something "off" about him even before the final revelations. He was way too touchy feely with the men and there was nothing gracious or noble about his deeds, he never once gave the glory to God, he made it all about himself. I got the feeling he filled the Church with these nomadic men in an attempt to find sexual partners. Allowing sex offenders to stay at his home where his daughters lived was a massive red flag. And fleeing from the reporter was very telling, he was a coward. That Church is much better off without him.
share