Cowboy Standing in a Field of Yellow Grass | Netflix's American Primeval & History of Brigham Young

Netflix’s American Primeval: The Prejudiced Fiction of Brigham Young

Can Netflix's 'American Primeval' justify its fictional Brigham Young? No, it fosters cultural bias under artistic license.

Imagine, if you will, a historical epic set in the time of the Roman Empire. Our main characters are fictional, trying to navigate a time of brutality. You’ve got characters in the Roman Legion who find themselves in skirmishes with worshipers of Mithras. You’ve got political scenes of Emperor Tiberius working with senators. But you’ve also got some up-and-comer named Constantine in the court. So as an audience member, you know they’re obviously playing around with the historicity a bit.

If you argue that this depiction is appallingly offensive … the retort is simple. Grow up.

Early on in the first episode of this hypothetical show, you learn about a traitorous sect that is following not just a providential governor but someone they describe as a king. They remain a mysterious force. We meet a few of the people from this traitorous sect. They’re helpful and seem relatively normal. But they are scared of the Romans, and you can sense maybe there is something to the rumors.

We see Gessius Florus attack a temple in the middle of these folks. And then we see this sect, in revenge, slaughter the Roman soldiers. While this is happening, we cut back to the leader of this traitorous sect, someone named Jesus, and we hear him give a voiceover to the violence.

“The strong shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after blood: for they shall be filled. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Those who do not bear fruit will be cut down.”

Now, as a Christian you might be rather upset with a show of this type. As a Christian, you’re probably rather fond of Jesus, and this retelling of his life is blatantly inaccurate. But how do you articulate that?

If you argue that this Jesus is clearly not historical, the retort is simple. This isn’t a History Channel show; it’s a historical epic set in a history-inspired setting.

If you argue that words have been put in Jesus’ mouth, the retort is simple. Lots of the words are what He said. And you have to grant artistic license. Since Jesus did, in fact, say He came to bring a sword, the other changes are simply to make His character make more sense.

If you argue that this depiction is appallingly offensive to the more than a billion Christians around the world, the retort is simple once again. Grow up. People are allowed to tell stories about you. You should be mature enough to recognize historical fiction for what it is.

Yet, for all these well-articulated retorts, I hope you recognize that this would still be wrong. And because the Christian movement more generally has enough cultural cachet in the US, we would never really expect a show like this to hit our cultural zeitgeist.

I’m sorry to report that a show of just this type has been made and will be released on Netflix on January 9th. Of course, as you might predict, the target of this show’s attacks is not Christians more generally, but rather my own specific religious faith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The show is called “American Primeval,” and it is Netflix’s latest attempt to capture the ratings magic of “Game of Thrones.” It features multiple factions, all striving for power and using whatever means they can to achieve it. 

But just like “Game of Thrones” was based on England’s War of Roses, “American Primeval” is based on the settling of the American West. And instead of changing the names around, it would be as if we just called Joffrey Edward III to make it feel more historically accurate. 

But it’s worse than that because the character that “American Primeval” chooses to make into a violent mockery of himself isn’t George Q. Cannon, who was a representative to Congress, or William Jennings the influential mayor of Salt Lake City. It’s Brigham Young—a man I believe God called to be a prophet.

Brigham Young led the Church of Jesus Christ at a precarious time. The state of Missouri threatened to kill any Latter-day Saint in the state and we suffered the massacres to prove they would follow through. The Saints built a new city in Illinois, only for a mob to assassinate their leader and prophet, Joseph Smith. Mobs then began to burn farms on the outskirts of town. Brigham Young led them out, and those who didn’t go were forcibly expelled the next year at gunpoint.

There is no need to paper over history here.

When Brigham Young arrived in Utah, he pursued a policy of peace with the native people there. Latter-day Saints learned the language and engaged in trade, and Young consistently stated in all their public remarks that natives should be treated kindly and fairly. When Latter-day Saints did commit violence, Young sought justice against them through legal accountability.

There is no need to paper over history here. Brigham Young also had racist attitudes about Native Americans. The Latter-day Saints he led didn’t always follow his counsel. And as with nearly every other group of settlers in the US there was conflict. 

But this is a far stretch from the violent murderer that appears in Netflix’s new television series under the name of Brigham Young.

The problem is that “American Primeval” is a pretty good show. It would be easier if I could just tell you that it’s all trash and easy to ignore. But the production design is great, and the acting performances are good. It always takes a good bit of luck to find the next big show, but “American Primeval” is good enough that it wouldn’t surprise me if it becomes one. And even when it comes to Latter-day Saints, the producers have relied on former Latter-day Saint and anti-Mormon activist Lindsay Hansen Park, so they get a lot of the cultural “feel” right too.

But in reality, the fact that the show is good makes the problem worse.  

The persecution that Brigham Young dealt with in his time has hardly gone away. Since 2020, Latter-day Saint chapels have been attacked 47 times. And the last time the FBI reported on the matter, hate crimes against Latter-day Saints were on the rise.

An effective attempt to marginalize minority groups is to paint them as inherently violent.

So far as I know, Latter-day Saints are the only religion in the United States today that deals with stadiums of tens of thousands of people chanting to “F***” them. It happened again just a few days ago.

When McKay Coppins, a journalist for the Atlantic, spoke to BYU’s Quarterback Jake Retzlaff, a Jewish man, Retzlaff said he faces way more anti-Mormonism than anti-Semitism. Coppins observed that Retzlaff is “less scandalized by the heckling than the lack of outrage it seems to engender. Retzlaff said, “The blatant disrespect for their faith—it’s something to think about. What if there was a Jewish university that had a Jewish football team, and they were saying that in the stands? … Like, imagine if that hit the papers. That would be a big deal.”

Throughout history, one of the most effective attempts to marginalize religious or other minority groups is to paint them as inherently violent. “American Primeval” is now the second major prestige drama to do just that. “Under the Banner of Heaven” was another well-made drama that told a story about a couple of murderers who were excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but attempted to somehow paint all Latter-day Saints as violent. American Primeval is now doing the same by telling a fictional story about a real leader who would never do what he is being shown doing.

This is odd because the best available evidence suggests that Latter-day Saints were less violent in the 19th century, and they remain less violent today. 

Netflix and Lindsay Hansen Park’s choice to defame Brigham Young under the pretense of “fiction” says very little about Brigham Young and Latter-day Saints in the 19th century or today. All it tells us is that the larger culture disfavors Latter-day Saints, and we don’t have the cachet to prevent this kind of treatment.

About the author

C.D. Cunningham

C.D. Cunningham is a founder and editor-at-large of Public Square magazine.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Ketanji Brown Jackson on Religious Freedom

Any time someone is nominated to be a Supreme Court Justice, people of faith are intensely interested in how this person will understand and protect their free exercise of religion. And analyses of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s approach on this issue have begun to spring up. Andrea Picciotti-Bayer at the National Catholic Register concludes that on religious liberty issues Jackson’s “record is not encouraging.” But while Picciotti-Bayer asks several important questions about how Jackson will rule, ultimately she provides little reason for concern. On the other side, Michael Helfand at the Canopy Forum concludes, “Her engagement with questions of law and religion, for now, seem the kind of balls-and-strikes decisions you would expect from a federal judge.” He cites decisions from her in 2014 and 2017 in favor of religious freedom, and ultimately concludes that there is no reason that American Jews should be worried about her approach to religious freedom. Before her nomination, Tanner Bean looked at the religious freedom approaches of Biden’s short list including Jackson for us here at Public Square. For Jackson, Bean looked at the same cases Helfand does, but also looks extensively at her public comments during her last judicial confirmation, including that “religious freedom is a foundational tenet of our entire government.” Which suggests her statement in her confirmation hearings that freedom of religion is a “foundational constitutional right” may be more deeply felt than performative.

A reflection on violence in film

Gladiator II is a serviceable historical epic. If you loved Gladiator, you’ll like Gladiator II. Gladiator II opens as Rome is about to siege the “last free city in Africa.” Our nameless hero loses valiantly with his wife dying in the battle, and he is brought to be a slave in Rome. But if our hero can perform well enough as a gladiator, he can buy his own freedom. And with that, we’re off. The beats of this film will be familiar, with a massive twist only halfway through that changes the stakes for everyone. Our hero is really the son of our hero from the last movie! Which means he has a legitimate claim to the throne of Rome. The movie tries to follow three different stories. Our hero (Paul Mescal) is trying to win his freedom and avenge his wife’s death. Acacius (Pedro Pascal), the general of the armies, wants respite and time with his wife; he also wants to lead a coup against the emperors. Macrinus (Denzel Washington) wants to work his way up in Roman power through political scheming. And then on top of all of that, we are told that our hero must deal with his father’s legacy and discover who he truly is.  It’s a lot, even for an epic, and the screenplay is not nearly tight enough to keep all the storylines coherent and moving. We are led to believe that Macrinus is successful in maneuvering to the top of Roman society because of his exceptional political skill, and Denzel Washington’s delicious performance makes that believable, but all we actually see him do is win a bet and carry out an assassination. Pedro Pascal’s excellent work as the weary general does some of the work in helping reconcile the contradictions in his character, but a look on his face here or there has to carry a lot that a simple conversation could have fleshed out.  Perhaps the reason the script doesn’t have time to breathe is also its biggest contradiction. There is something grotesque about watching audiences cheer on the brutal violence taking place in the film. And yet, the entire film is centered on having us, the audience, watch one set piece of over-the-top violence after another. We don’t get to see Macrinus manipulate the Roman senate because, instead, we need to see our hero fighting with CGI rhinos or CGI sharks. There is a place for violence in a moral movie. It can be helpful to attune our senses to recoil from violence or recognize the rare places it is justified. But the violence on display in Gladiator II is so relentless and gratuitous that it dulls the senses instead.  This is not to diminish the craftsmanship that has been used to bring this world and its many battle scenes to light. Rome feels broad and alive in true epic fashion, and it’s easy to get swept away into its world—with the exception of a few uncharacteristic pieces of clunky CGI work. The opening battle sequence is perhaps the best ever put to screen.  The best part of Gladiator II was its opening. A 1950s style opening credits are shown over a lavish dreamy animated retelling of the first film. Everything about it screams that something epic is about to be shown. But throughout the movie I stayed fixated on what it could have been. What if it had been more focused on the characters I cared about? What if it didn’t try to connect so much plot to the previous film and let this story stand on its own merits? What if they had expanded it to a TV miniseries so that its many plot points had space to breathe? In the end, despite some good acting and a beautiful setting, the movie just left so much to be wanted.  Gladiator II is R-rated. It is not appropriate for children or, in my estimation, most adults. At its core, this film has a moral message: life is hard, but it’s worth fighting for. But the way it’s presented on screen does more to drag down the spirit than to lift it up. Two and a half out of five stars. Gladiator II opens nationwide November 22, 2024.