Anschauen Church & State

Church & State

Church & State is a movie starring Jennifer Lynn Dobner, Mark Lawrence, and Jim Magleby. A surprise federal court ruling in 2013 legalized gay marriage for Utah - triggering a fierce battle in a state where Mormon church values...

Running Time
1 hours 24 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Holly Tuckett, Kendall Wilcox
Kendall Wilcox, Jennifer Lynn Dobner, Holly Tuckett, Torben Bernhard
Taylor Petrey, Mark Lawrence, Jim Magleby, Jennifer Lynn Dobner
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A surprise federal court ruling in 2013 legalized gay marriage for Utah - triggering a fierce battle in a state where Mormon church values control the Legislature and every aspect of public life.

Comments about documentary «Church & State» (13)

Willie H. photo
Willie H.

Evan Peters and Emily Benham have assembled a wonderful ensemble of experts, writers, and thinkers. This movie is a really great exploration of the difference between intelligence and intelligence of the "average" guy who has been in a poor family, who has been traumatized by war, who has an adult child who has lost a parent, who has been subjected to endless government-sponsored sensory deprivation and forced labor. It is about the role of the individual, of the individual as a condition of history and of our society. But it is about more than that. It is about how we have failed as a society in our capacity to produce the intelligent people, in the capacity to realize the possibilities of the individual's mind. And so it is with the viewer. This movie should be required viewing for everyone. It should be at the forefront of every teenager's, for every young adult's, and every adult's educational and life history. It is a film that we should watch again and again. It should be a film that we should remember and cherish. It should be the starting point of any student's life of critical thinking.

Phillip Cunningham photo
Phillip Cunningham

I was interested to see this film because of the premise that shows how power corrupts. It also portrays how a kind and caring woman from a poor background, who finds herself in the middle of power play, finds her way to regain her identity and freedom.

Rose Long photo
Rose Long

I don't remember how I first heard of this documentary. I was watching Fox News and heard the name of Mark Fuhrman and wondered if it was worth watching. When I saw the title of the film, I thought it might be a student-directed film. Boy was I wrong. The results are just as startling as they are brilliant. It seems that the point of this film is to tell the story of all the people who have become victims of the U.S. state-sponsored policies of the CIA and its contractors. The message is clear. If you are on the left, you should be very afraid. If you are on the right, you should be very scared. This is a story of two people. They were both journalists who went undercover in the CIA to expose the fact that all the money that is spent on the CIA is directly stolen from the countries and people that we are trying to help. If you care about this issue, watch this film.

Michael Campbell photo
Michael Campbell

I'm sorry but this is so generic. This documentary is awful. You know you're in trouble when they literally drag you through, basically, the same interview with the same bland way that you're supposed to know that this guy is not a spy because he's, you know, white, straight, middle class and normal, etc, etc. The guy is dumb. He is stupid. He is a person who feels nothing and says nothing. He is this guy who doesn't understand, who isn't. Basically, he's a good guy, and the man is a spy. Except the guy is a white guy. He does nothing, he says nothing. He's just a person who doesn't do anything. He's a guy who needs some person to talk to. How's that for generic? So, there's a man who feels nothing, and does nothing, and even though he's supposed to be a spy, he does nothing, he does nothing. And he says nothing. The only reason you even care is that he's being so boring, that the guy is being so boring. And this is supposed to be a documentary about spies and spying and blah blah blah. Don't waste your time with this crap.

Mark M. photo
Mark M.

If you are not completely familiar with the information in this film, you may think that it is a waste of time to watch it. However, it does not matter whether you are an anarchist or not, it is impossible not to get involved in the ideas that are presented. Although it was made in 1982, the film has its relevance to today, as the most important way to stay aware of the growing knowledge of the real world that is happening today, is through knowledge of our current world's political and economic problems. I would recommend this film to anyone who loves philosophy, history, science, art and cinema as well as to any who wants to learn more about the ideas of anarchism. I personally enjoy it and it helped me to get more interested in my life.

Debra photo

We want to hear your opinions.If you want to go see a film and you feel the need to write a ten line essay about it, then by all means, go see it. If you don't like it and you want to be able to write a ten line essay about it, then stay home and watch TV. But we will get your opinion in writing and read it to you.But we will tell you what we think. I'm not going to go on a rant about movies. I've already said that. I think you're being unfair to The Marx Brothers by doing that. However, I will say this: I really enjoyed this movie. It has a lot of heart and is very entertaining. I give it an A+.

Karen Edwards photo
Karen Edwards

Part political propaganda film, part time capsule, part action thriller, part expository social history film, and an invitation to watch and learn. Based on a collaboration between London, New York, and Chicago, the film is a cross-cutting portrait of three generations of young Americans, from generation to generation, back in the 1920s to 1970s. It is the first ever interview with a current American president, Bill Clinton. Paul Begley, the film's producer, said that he was inspired by Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" and Abraham Lincoln's "Declaration of Independence" for his story. The interviewees include presidents, former presidents, ministers, journalists, and members of the clergy. These were also the interviews of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. One of the interviewees, who lives in the White House, was Clinton himself. "I knew that he would like it," Begley said, "but I didn't know he would say such unkind things about me." Clinton is apparently trying to explain why he felt the need to say those unkind things to the right people. Begley said that the president gave a very impassioned speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in his first term in office in which he said that he was shocked by the "objectionable" questions that journalists had been asking about his sex life. In the film, Begley explains that this speech was part of a "tens of thousands of private conversations with just one or two people." However, many people who were interviewed were telling the truth. The people interviewed are now all dead, in that order. Begley said that these interviews had some serious implications for his film, as it is based on their recollections. "If you can see this film," Begley said, "you will see the things that I saw." Begley said that he hoped that the film would be a tool for politicians, politicians who want to be the next president, and politicians who want to be seen as a leader of the country. He said that the film was made with little money, and he hopes that it will be seen by as many people as possible. In that, he is right. "For the press, this is the greatest challenge," he said. "But for the American people, we really needed this film." 9/10

Barbara Morrison photo
Barbara Morrison

I did not know this film existed before I saw it. I don't understand why it was not given a better rating. Although it was poorly paced it still held a great message. I'm not saying it should have gotten a 10 but I don't feel that a film should be so poorly paced, no matter how good the message. The messages in this film were well delivered and really made you think. If you are thinking about taking a drug to get high, skip this film and watch a good film about drugs instead.

Cynthia photo

American History X is a very controversial film which has divided many of its viewers. Personally I thought the film was very good, but I found that the viewing experience varied greatly from person to person. I agree with the majority of IMDb users, that the film was too long and that the ending was abrupt. I thought it was a very dark film, but in that aspect I found that more intense than other films. I think the film is too dark for a lot of people, but I would not say that the film was a bad film. The acting in the film was good, and it showed that Anthony Hopkins and Tom Cruise were very good actors, but I believe the film would have benefited if they were in a more humorous, dramatic role. I felt that the film was very serious, and that the film was a struggle of Anthony Hopkins, but I could not help but feel that Tom Cruise was better in the film. The film is too serious for some, but it was very funny and has a good ending. I do not think that the film was an "excellent film", but it was a very good film.

Daniel H. photo
Daniel H.

Peter FitzSimons, a journalist, joins the Los Angeles Times as a film critic in August 1981. He had written two previous documentaries on the State Department in the early 1980s: "The L.A. Times and the St. Petersburg Times" and "Inside the State Department". He had also edited the book "A Man Called One: The Politics of the Times," written by Tom Clancy. This book was a synthesis of his earlier work, providing a history of the State Department, the CIA, the Kennedy administration and the founding of the United Nations. FitzSimons goes back to the days of Robert Kennedy and the Caribbean Basin. He is interested in the Cuban Missile Crisis, specifically why the US was not more aggressive with the Soviet Union in Cuba and why the US went to war in Vietnam. FitzSimons' comments are thoughtful and informed, and he discusses several incidents that shaped the US involvement in the Cold War. John Backus, a well-known contemporary of FitzSimons, is interviewed about his experience with the Kennedy administration and the State Department. He explains his reason for participating in the interview. FitzSimons is clearly going to be someone who can do well with the documentary program. He discusses what his personal identity is, and his initial thoughts about taking on such a large project. I hope he is successful. I found the first half of the program, which was mainly about the history of the State Department and the Kennedy administration, rather dull. The second half of the program, which was dedicated to FitzSimons' early career as a journalist, was much more interesting. His focus on the Cuban Missile Crisis made his presentation of the film seem fresh and unique. He starts by introducing us to a film critic in the 1960s named Orson Wells. The film critic was a source of knowledge and inspiration for FitzSimons. Orson Wells had many interesting things to say about the Cuban Missile Crisis. He provided FitzSimons with the basic facts about the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as some background information about the issue. FitzSimons discusses the facts of the Cuban Missile Crisis, including the types of missiles and the points that various countries were making about the crisis. I found the interview with FitzSimons and the filmmaker to be interesting and well-done. I liked how the filmmaker showed that FitzSimons' career as a journalist began at the ripe age of 15 and went through several stages. FitzSimons then went to the newspaper in the early 1960s, and then he joined the State Department as a reporter. I liked how FitzSimons gives us his commentary about a wide range of subjects, including the Cold War, nuclear disarmament and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I also liked the filmmaker's use of social media. I liked how FitzSimons interviews current and former state department employees, as well as the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam. I also liked the fact that he did not portray the State Department as the evil force it is, but rather as a flawed institution that contributed to the Cold War. FitzSimons offers a strong, balanced analysis of the Cold War. I would recommend this documentary to anyone who is interested in the Cold War. The documentary is not perfect, but it is a worthwhile documentary. The film does not provide the answers to questions like: how did the Cuban Missile Crisis occur, and who was behind it? The documentary provides an interesting look into the history of the Cold War. It is well worth the time to watch this documentary.

Ralph Stephens photo
Ralph Stephens

This movie was well made. A lot of clips and examples of well-known films. It was interesting to see how different American movies looked and how different the films were based on the works of the authors of those works. This was a good introduction to the past of American cinema and was great to have an overall history of all the movies and their makers.

Louis photo

This film is a real eye opener. I saw it on the big screen at the Toronto Film Festival and it was very well done. The subject matter is very sensitive and the subject of this film is very difficult to watch. I would have preferred a more realistic depiction of what happens in the prison system. However, I am glad I saw it. I hope it gets a wider release. I also hope that this film will be used as a teaching tool to the students of this great country. It is a very powerful film that I would recommend to anyone. It is very well done and it has a very powerful message. I hope this film will be used in a more accurate way in the future.

Theresa photo

It's difficult to say what is the best film of the year, because there are so many. But I would have to say that this is the best. It's a really good film, and I would recommend it to anyone. The film is about the relationship between a mother and her daughter. The mother is a teacher and she is a very strong woman. She doesn't have a lot of time for her daughter and she does everything in her power to make her life miserable. But the daughter is a girl who has a lot of problems, but she has a strong will and she doesn't give up. She's a very good actress and she was very good in this film. I think it's very good. I think it's one of the best films of the year. It's a very good film. I would recommend it to anyone. It's very good.