Love in Zion National: A National Park Romance

These writers frequently mention the Anasazi ... referring to them as a current Native American tribe. If you're going to pick the name of a Native American tribe out of the hat, don't you think it would be a good idea to spend at least three minutes in research?

If they HAD, they'd have discovered the Anasazi were an ancient tribe and they would not have called themselves the Anasazi. That was a name assigned to them by later tribes who settled the area and came across the relics of the Anasazi civilization.

The Anasazi themselves completely disappeared circa 1000 years ago. So the park ranger character here would NOT be a member of the Anasazi tribe. The so-called Anasazi "vases" (obviously actually urns) would not be the rightful property of such a tribe since they have not existed in 1000 years.

Even though it's theorized that the Hopi and Pueblo might be some sort of descendants of some elements of the Anasazi, even that is only conjecture with no direct evidence.

How do I know about this? I wrote a flash fiction about the Anasazi a couple of years ago, and even to write 650 words, I spent a considerable time doing MY homework so I wouldn't butcher the subject as this movie does.

Outside of that, the writers even blew the legal side of contesting a will, lots of dialogue is just off, and the female lead's acting was unconvincing to me. Perky is no substitute for professional. The male lead was a bit wooden.

I gave an extra star for the scenery, otherwise I consider this film an utter failure.

Beautiful desert backdrop to this Hallmark romance which was heavy on an Anasazi mystery. I love the Southwest and I am really enjoying Hallmark highlighting National Parks. I also really love Native American culture, but I am by no means an expert. I was left questioning things in this film however...like aren't Kachinas a Hopi tradition? Wouldn't it be cultural appropriation if the Anasazi are making and-or selling Kachinas? Also, I appreciated that the grandmother, played wonderfully by Monique Filips, mentions the three sister and how that was a way of planting used by the natives...but didn't explain why (how one steals nitrogen out of the soil and one puts nitrogen back in...).

The story is about a museum worker who upon unboxing donated artifacts (three Anasazi wedding vases), determines that there is a missing vase and with the donor's journal goes to Zion National Park to find the missing vessel. There she is assigned a park ranger as a guide and this is how she meets "native" Adam Proudstar, his technology loving brother Tate and his grandmother Kaya. These three are the best part of this film which is more of a mystery than a romance.

I recommend this film to mystery lovers and those who love the southwest...romantics might be disappointed...or they might also fall in love with the Proudstar brothers!

It appears that Hallmark planned this production with a triple intent: shell out their weekly romantic flick, while highlighting Utah's natural beauty, and paying homage to a relevant form of Native American heritage. Quite an ambitious , perhaps too ambitious, project. It would have required a far less superficial understanding of, and a deeper respect for the subject. The profound historical absurdity of the story has been well exposed by two previous reviewers. What's more, the misuse of traditional elements, thrown into the movie, rather than paying homage, makes it unwillingly offensive. The producers could have elected to create fictitiuos names for the "Anasazi tribe" and symbols of their culture. After all, the entire plot is a fantasy. Isn't it regularly done, in movies with Royals of nonexistent Kingdoms, somewhere in Europe? Instead, they chose real traditions and names and even conferred a major role to a "Kachina" doll. Now, just a few Nations could rightly identify as descendant of the Ancient Puebloans and carry on with this tradition. The Proudstars must share into Hopi or Sio (Zuni) heritage, where the Kachina [a Hopi word) tradition mostly belongs.

Here is where things do not square out.

The rudimentary vases that play a role in the movie, share little in common with the much finer Hopi or Tewa-Hopi pottery, adorned with very different motifs and patterns, still similar to those produced centuries ago. Grandma Proudstars lives in an environment, filled with generic southwestern styled decorations and fake-Pendleton blankets, that suggest nothing of Hopi making or that would be cherished by a person purportedly deeply immerse in her traditional spirituality. Kachina dolls were and are carved in the image of spiritual beings who appear in ceremonial dances, to teach children and women how to recognize them. They were not used as amulets. It is hard to believe a true Hopi would give one as a "guiding spirit", let alone to a complete outsider! The doll in the movie, itself, is not a Kachina. It is a horrible imitation with mask and garments that do not fit the appearance of any of the about 300 authentic ones which are known, beside, apparently, not being carved out of cottonwood roots, as tradition dictates. It suspiciously look like one of the cheapest tourist-fakes produced in spades by Navajos. Which is ironic, when one considers that the term "Anasazi"is a Navajo etymon for "Ancient Enemy" and the Hopi Kachina that represents the neighboring Navajo is named "Tasup", for "Head-basher".

Coming to the other intents of the production, the romantic story is poorly eventful and moderately insipid.

Zion Park, on the contrary, is as beautiful as expected and the filming renders it justice. For this accomplishment alone, the movie may be worth a look, and my rating was not completely negative.

Other reviewers have pointed out the cultural and historical mistakes rightfully. But I would like to point out the modern ones. The main character stays in a spacious lodge for one. She leaves, including for a trip of a week, without turning off the lights, locking the door, or even putting out the unneeded fire in the fireplace.

She and the park ranger never wear a hat for protection against the sun. They have no canteens of water or are seen staying hydrated. If I were going out in the wilderness for a week, I would charge up my cellphone, spotty reception or not. She did use it to take pictures with.

She also told the ranger she was taking only a few power bars for food. It also might have seemed more authentic to have at least a few Native American cast members as extras.

The inside of the grandmother's house looked like a modern suburban house. Many Native Americans living in rural isolation have a jerry-built home or an old trailer house. These are just a few thoughts off the top of my head. The scenery was the bet part.

I enjoyed the first National Parks romance and was looking forward to this one, but even the spectacular scenery and landmarks of Zion could not help this movie. It was so historically inaccurate that it spoiled the plot. Also, the ages of the characters did not work. The grandmother, a lovely character, looked about 50. Cindy is now 40 but was paired with a male lead that is 32 (and looked 25) and they had no connection at all. And I hope that David actually has ties to native heritage. His bio is sparse. They set out for a 6 day hike with small backpacks. Where was their food, water, clothing, supplies, etc. Just not believable at all. Even the vases looked fake and simplistic. This is a popular park but they did not meet anyone on their hike. And are campfires safe these days what with all of the fires burning across the west? There were just so many little annoying features that took away from the story. If there are others in this series, I hope they are much better and more realistic than this sad excuse for a movie.