Cashing In On The Down-Home Murder Ballad
On Christmas Day, 1929, Stokes County tobacco farmer Charlie Lawson gunned down his wife and seven of their eight children. (The oldest, Arthur, wasn’t home.) He then killed himself, his only explanation for this horrific crime being a handwritten note found in his coat pocket: “Blame no one but I.” This grim tale became the basis for a number of murder ballads, such as the Stanley Brothers’ “The Story of the Lawson Family,” and is a dark highlight of the region’s folklore. Yet, until recently, the story behind one of the worst mass murders in North Carolina history has been strangely unexamined: No one ever knew why Lawson killed his family. Enter Break of Dawn Productions, a Raleigh-based documentary team that released its own examination of the story, A Christmas Family Tragedy, late last year. While the idea of re-opening an 80-year-old cold case is interesting, Break of Dawn seems disconcertingly eager to make a profitable mystery out of human tragedy. They’ve examined claims that incest, a head injury, “religious psychosis” and a possible conspiracy are all to blame. Is this history, or exploitation? The film screens in Asheville on Thursday, March 29, at the Fine Arts Theatre. For more information (including a rather off-kilter discussion forum), visit bodproductions.com.
Wengrow Gets His Due
If you don’t know who Arnold Wengrow is, be ashamed. A former UNCA professor, Wengrow helped to found the college’s drama program in the early 1970s, staging a number of performances that would help establish the nascent Asheville theater community. What’s more, in that exclusive world behind the backdrops and lighting rigs, Wengrow is also considered one of the keenest observers of technique, writing insightful examinations of stage design for national trade publications. He was recently honored with a Herbert D. Greggs Award by the United States Institute for Theater Technology for his profile of Broadway stage designer Marjorie Kellogg. It’s the second time Wengrow has won the Greggs Award.
This ‘Christmas Family Tragedy’ article is ignorant slanderous crap by Mr. Shanafelt, and he should apologize to the good people at Helpmate of Buncome County, the community’s resource for domestic violence issues and will be at the screening at the Fine Arts Theatre.
Their mission, “We believe that it is the obligation of our local and global community to eradicate violence by challenging a culture that values power and control” is shared by the filmmakers. This film uses a story Appalachia can’t quit talking about to raise awareness of an issue no one wants to face – Domestic Violence.
Perhaps the next time Mr. Shanafelt slanders a film in public, he should at least disclose to his audience that he didn’t bother to watch it.
Sincerely,
Eric Calhoun
Break of Dawn Productions
Eric,
How is anything he said in that piece pro domestic violence? He asked a few questions about your little movie, and you flew off the handle accusing him of being against a great organization. Something tells me that you are really just a sad, thin skinned little man who can’t handle any criticism.
You can criticize the film on its merits as a film, no problem. But we have worked too hard and put our money where our mouth is by pledging 10% of the film’s profits to sponsor the first battered women’s shelter in the county where this tragedy took place to have our motives publicly questioned.
My point is that this organization, who has seen the film, is supporting our film, then would you expect us to be exploiting the cause that they fight against every day?
No, I don’t expect you to exploit a cause. I expect you to make a compelling film about a something that happened. From the sounds of it, you did just that. But remember, that one person’s righteous cause is another person’s shameless exploitation. If you wanted someone to merely say what you wanted to say and how you wanted to say it, perhaps you’d be better served by writing your own press release rather than wait for a newsweekly to tell you what you want.
I’m glad Mr. Calhoun is reading our paper. While I applaud the donations they are making out of their profits, I think my take on their publicity tactics is completely fair. I spent oodles of time on their website and forums when I wrote that blurb, and they put far more emphasis on the fact that you could buy the movie at Borders and Barnes & Noble than they did that they were donating some money to charity. The charity connection is made via one image-link on the very bottom of their homepage, a text-link on their “Links” page. I’d hardly call that driving home the point. To be fair, they also mention this fact in their press kit, but it’s buried under the whole unsolved murder mystery thing.
You mean that *GASP* these noble people are out there trying to make money off of their movie?
Yup. I’m not saying that the film is bad or that they didn’t have some good motives behind making it, but rather that it’s also cashing in on a very bloody, very famous (in certain circles, at least) real-life crime to make its point. I can’t say I blame them, either. But, if you are going to do that — EVEN IF YOU DONATE SOME OF THE MONEY TO CHARITY — it’s perfectly fair for other people to examine that motive.
No it’s not. Charity absolves anything, it’s almost like flossing. I could kill 17 people (don’t worry Mr. Calhoun-none will be women) and I’d only be tried for manslaughter if I could prove that I flossed that morning.
i have seen this film and enjoyed it a lot, it is about much more than just the murders, but how people sensationalize these events and what effect that has on families that had to live thru it. but i’m adding my 2 cents because this movie tells about the director’s personal history to the story, which would answer that question of motive. i have to agree that questioning the motives would go further if you had seen the film too.
boy, everytime you bring up the Lawson’s, you get a heated squabble.
So, to further illustrate that point: He made a movie about it, dredging the whole thing back up again, he’s charging people $35 to buy a copy of it, and that’s somehow not sensationalizing it even more? I don’t buy it.
But $3.50 of the cost is going to charity!
“But $3.50 of the cost is going to charity!”
You’re right. I take it all back. Excuse me now, I’ve got to go floss …
Somebody’s going to die! Knowing you, it’ll be a woman, you misogynist.
Steve –
Why don’t you come out and watch it at the Fine Arts Theater this Thursday at 7PM. It’s a good film to watch with an audience to see the discussion it generates, and you’ll have a chance to ask me any question at the Q&A after. I’ll leave a couple tickets at the door.
Eric Calhoun
Producer/Writer
“A Christmas Family Tragedy”
Steve and Jason
I totally agree with the both of you!! They are constantly backlashing Trudy Smith for her 2 books, “White Christmas, Bloody Christmas”, and “The Meaning Of Our Tears”. Saying she wrote the books at the familys expense just to make money, well what are they doing and I also hear that Matt’s mother Maria is in the works of making a scrapbook from the tragedy as well, to be bought of course. Always enjoyed this sight and visit daily!! Take Care
No matter what – a portion of the proceeds are going to help victims of domestic violence – even $3.50 is better than nothing. All of Trudy’s money is going straight to her pocket.
Oooh…ok…then its ok to profit off of a tragedy as long as you donate some of the money, how stupid of me for not thinking that way…duh..no its not ok it is still the same thing and I believe the only reason they are donating is so they can rake in more cash….figure it out yourself moran.
Must you result to name calling to get your point across? I personally have nothing against Trudy Smith as I also have nothing against BOD productions. I’m just stating that they are at least donating some of the money they are making off the DVD to charity. Trudy is not. I suppose you think the fee the US Holocaust Museum in Washington charges to become a member is blood money as well? What about the gift shop in the Holocaust Museum? Museums and documentaries are to help us remember bad things that have happened in hopes that they will never be repeated.
LittleOne: Interesting point, but it’s not the same thing. The Holocaust Museum is civically funded, and all the money raised goes towards the museum and its awareness programs.
This documentary, however, was made by private citizens for their own reasons, and the vast majority of the money it earns will go to the people who made the film. It’s a business venture, not a civic one.
Is it exploitation? Depends on your definition, I guess. I remain unconvinced about the motives of the filmmakers, personally.
I am all for museums and documentaries too. But the whole issue for me was how Trudy Smith was being falsely accused of inaccurate information in her two books. Whereas I’m sure the documentary isn’t exactly the gospel. I think both sides should be able to view opinions without the other stating hateful and unessary comments. The folks at the BOD forum are continually bashing her and I honestly believe its so they can get in the limelight and sell their documentary. And what historical advantage is it to have a scrapbook of dead people?
Steve –
Have you taken any time to watch the movie yet, since you turned down my invitation to come to the Fine Arts Theatre when we were there?
I’ll say it again – the film itself explains a lot of the motivations.
Also, I always thought Ken Hanke’s review was funny given your article. He complained that there wasn’t enough blood n’ gore in it. Gotta love it! BTW, 3 1/2 stars, not bad from Kranky Hanke.
Cheers,
Eric Calhoun
Break of Dawn Productions
Eric: Are you sure you read Hanke’s review all the way through? Here’s why I ask:
“… placing the murders in the realm of domestic violence—an idea that doesn’t take center stage till late in the proceedings. I don’t doubt the sincerity of this, but I’m not sure I completely agree with it. … the domestic violence angle feels a little too easy for a crime of this magnitude (and is hardly relevant to the attendant ghost stories, in any case).”
Here’s the review, and I wouldn’t exactly call it a positive one, just ambivalent:
http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/christmas_family_tragedy
And while I’ve got you, Eric, let me give you the chance to set the record straight on the film. Was raising awareness about domestic violence the main reason you and your team made this film? If so, why not donate all the proceeds (after costs, obviously) to charity, rather than just a portion of the funds?
Also, what are your thoughts on Trudy Smith’s work? Do you believe it to be exploitive? Would you care to answer silentlybroken’s claim that “They (presumably the filmmakers) are constantly backlashing Trudy Smith”?
Lastly, would you mind giving us a ballpark number of how much money has been raised for charity from this film?
Steve: I understand your valid point. I guess I lean more towards it not being exploitation as they could have chosen to keep all the proceeds for themselves and donate nothing. Another positive point for me is I don’t recall any family members being upset about this documentary and it was made using their voice. Everyone has to make a living in this world and I have to give them some points for choosing to donate a percentage to charity.
Silentlybroken: I understand your point too. From what I’ve seen on the forum, they seem to be upset by Trudy’s biggest selling point – there was a witness to the murder. However, Trudy did not contact this “witnesses” own children. She just took the word of one person and made it the big draw for her book. 2 of the witness’s children responded on that forum that he was not there during the murders. So do you believe them or do you believe the caretaker? And I’m not sure I understand how bashing Trudy gets them in the limelight.
And referring again to the Holocaust Museum – isn’t that basically one big scrapbook of dead people? Again, to remind us of things that should never happen again.
LittleOne: While you could refer to the Holocaust museum as “basically one big scrapbook of dead people,” it’s a bit like referring to the Sears Tower as a downtown office building.
Further, NO ONE is making money off of the Holocaust Museum. It’s a civic establishment — one that we all own a part of — and the money it takes in from donations is used to keep the doors open and the displays current.
There’s a HUGE difference between that and a private film company making a movie or a “scrapbook” and donating a small portion of the profits to charity. I’m not saying it’s not a nice gesture, but it’s not at all the same thing.
Imagine it was another situation, someone making a documentary about the Nazis killing a family of Jews on Hanukkah in the late 1930s. Suppose they called it “A Hanukkah Family Horror,” and in the promotional materials they made sure to play up the gruesome nature of the event by referring to it (much like the film above does) as a “horrible” and “brutal” “massacre” and “mass murder.” Oh, and the ghosts of the dead are a part of it, too.
Then imagine that those same filmmakers claimed that the film wasn’t REALLY about the gory Nazi crime, but that it was really about religious intolerance. (And maybe ghosts, but only a little bit.) Oh, but a little of the cash raised goes to a religious rights organization, which is good, because it’s tax-deductible for the filmmakers. To me, this hypothetical film doesn’t exactly seem charitable, at least not enough to be compared (with a straight face) to the Holocaust Museum.
And, at the end of the day, the makers of “A Hanukkah Family Horror” get to keep most of the money made off of the tragedy. If the film is successful, they get to sell other things — CDs with music inspired by the event, “scrapbooks” about the family, etc. — but they balk when some question the other, perhaps less-than-completely-altruistic motives behind the film. Charitable donations make them immune, right?
I’m not saying this is the case with the “A Christmas Family Tragedy,” but I do think there’s reason to ask these questions.
Steve: Oh I agree with you 100%. I was only referring to silentlybroken’s comment “And what historical advantage is it to have a scrapbook of dead people?” The Holocaust can in NO WAY be compared to anything related to Charlie Lawson and the DVD. I believe you took my comment the wrong way. Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear.
LittleOne: No harm done, I just wanted to make sure we kept things in context.
Hey Steve –
We never set out to solve the mystery, just report on it; we never set out to prove a definitive truth, but explore the relationship of the community with a tragedy that altered it’s history and provokes intense feelings even today.
Actually, we had ZERO intention of including Domestic Violence when we started out. Never occurred to us, and of all the material written and sung about the Lawson’s I had never seen it presented as such. The Lawson story was an important part of the director Matt Hodges’ childhood, and so it was only natural that when he became a professional story teller, he’d want to tell this one.
Where domestic violence came into the story was once we got into Stokes County, and started hearing the stories from people. Not right away, mind you. When you’re out in the country, there are different stories told to outsiders, and those told amongst the community (and even there, you may get a real different story between the women and the men).
Once we got past the standard “Charlie Lawson was a GOOD MAN” response from the community, and built up trust with our interview subjects, the stories started coming in. First, it was hearing from several women that their fathers or husbands would use the story as a threat, as in, “you better start behaving or else I’m gonna do what Charlie did.” Some would actually play the ballad before the violence started.
There were 2 events that really sealed the deal for us, that this was an important part of the story of the Lawson family in Stokes County. First, we decided to interview the Domestic Violence case workers in the county. It was pretty easy, since like many rural counties, their programs are vastly under-funded, and there are only two ladies who have to deal with 100’s of new cases a year, plus repeats.
Anyways, we didn’t tell them the reason we wanted the interview, but when we walked up to their offices, they had a spread on the Lawson family displayed. A common fear that prevents many women from seeking help is that they feel they are the only one’s this happens to. The caseworkers told us that they keep that display to reframe a story that all the victims have heard of before, to let them know they aren’t the only ones. I’m sorry if it seems trite, but it’s sobering to be there.
The event that sealed our financial commitment to the cause was when Matt was invited to speak at the county’s DV Vigil in October, 2006. There, we met the Norman/Tittle family, whose daughter Melissa was murdered in a domestic homicide in the county in front of her daughter. A piece of her story ended up in the film, as many of the same warning signs were present in her murder, which no one acted on as well.
Here are some comments on the film by Sharon Norman, Melissa’s mother:
“CHARLIE LAWSON FASCINATES US, AND MELISSA TITTLE IS JUST A FACE IN THE DVD TO MOST, BUT IF MORE PEOPLE HAD BEEN AWARE AND NOT AFRAID TO SPEAK UP THINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT. THE OLD SAYING FROM 77 YRS AGO IS YOU DIDN’T MIND YOUR NEIGHBOR’S BUSINESS. LIVES ARE BEING TAKEN AND DESTROYED BY THAT OLD WAY OF THINKING.
I COMMEND MATT FOR A JOB WELL DONE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS EVERYONE’S PROBLEM. HOW ARE LAWS CHANGED? PEOPLE SPEAK OUT, AND YES IT COMES FROM CHARLIE LAWSON AND MELISSA TITTLE TRAGEDIES, BUT FROM THEM WE ALSO LEARN AND GROW TO HELP THE NEXT VICTIM NOT BE A TRAGEDY.”
As far as how much we’ve raised, ironically (as far as us being vicious exploiters) it’s quite low, since we’re still in debt on the film. We did do one benefit show in the spring, and are lining up several others for October (Domestic Violence Awareness Month). You’ll have to excuse us, summer is a low point of interest since we are Christmas related.
For spreading awareness of the issue, we try and arrange for a DV agency to be present at as many screenings as possible, and I’ve been told that several have received donations that way. But, I think we’ll eventually be able to write meaningful checks, as this space is just another example of how the story won’t go away.
As far as Mrs. Smith, I will say that the vast majority of the criticism of her book revolves around details asserted as fact in the book that have been demonstrably proven otherwise, of which there have been a number of points. On our website’s message forum, we have a policy trying to curb name calling and personal attacks whoever the target may be. Besides that, I respectfully decline to comment.
Sorry this is long, but your questions aren’t answered quickly if you would like them answered. Thanks for the forum to do so. In closing, what I’ll hang my hat on, as far as are we exploitive, if the response and support from the families most closely involved to the degree that no one who has ever reported on this story has received.
Thanks,
Eric Calhoun
Break of Dawn Productions
http://www.bodproductions.com
Eric: That’s the ticket! Thanks for taking the time to directly address some of the concerns we’ve posted about here. This story is obviously a very touchy subject for a lot of people, as I’m sure you’ve experienced firsthand. Please keep us posted on the film and the controversy.