I attended the Traverse City Film Festival last week, and I will be spending my first couple of posts on some films that I saw.
When the Festival came to an end, I knew immediately what film I had to talk about first and foremost. As a fan of film, and being a current film major, I could not help but become completely immersed with the film issues at play in the film Cleanflix. The film, written and directed by Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi, documents the film editing culture that grew rapidly in Utah. The film puts most of its focus on the entrepreneurs that began these businesses, but James and Ligairi ground the film in that belief that without the Mormon church, such a business would never exist.
The film comments least on the issues of the Mormon church and censorship in accordance with obedience (If you want a serious film about the issues of the Mormon church, 8: The Mormon Proposition is a pretty emotional comment.). In the beginning, the film shows that a living Mormon prophet in the '80's banned R-rated films (why trust those outside of the Mormon church to decide what is good?) for providing viewers with "suggestive material" that would dirty the mind forever.
The major issues at play, however, are issues that can be found outside of the Mormon church. Many claim that Hollywood has some kind of "agenda" that involves desensitizing us all to sex and violence, especially sex. For those that are religious, violence and sex are often scary, sinful things. Businesses, like the incredibly popular Clean flicks, wanted to eliminate all of the "nasty" junk from those movies. What's the harm?
Of course, there are numerous problems with this, legally and philosophically. These businesses "cleansed" the films of violence and sex without the permission of anyone involved with the film. Many directors, producers, and a large portion of Hollywood, were absolutely upset about the concept at the core of these businesses. Legally, they had a just reason for it: these businesses were violating copyright.
There is also the issue of morality, and who gets to decide what is "good." To directors, these businesses tarnished their vision. Films like Fight Club, for example, have violence for what some may call a moral comment. Without the violence, there is no comment, and the film is altered in a way that it doesn't represent its original self. But, if one community, mormon or otherwise, believes that sex and violence has no place in their community, should they be able to alter art, or is this completely selfish? Do they have an argument?
The film makes a point of stating that the larger issue here is sexual imagery. Anything even commenting on biological fact that a penis and a vagina exist is often edited out. One particular college professor proposes an important question. If we aren't to learn about sex somewhere, where will our mind take us?
Politically, this is the most interesting issue in the film to me. If people are worried about sexual and violent images in film, do they not already preexist in their head? Is it better to completely ignore these visuals and fetishize them, or is it better to see and come to terms? Is not seeing mean not having a conversation? If conversations aren't being had, then how is sex and violence understood? In this sense, "R-Rated" films are important.
Of course, there is one other glaring issue in Cleanflix that I have not discussed, and it is the issue of digital technology. Without digital technology, businesses like Clean Flicks could have never been possible. James and Ligairi did a Q&A after the film and touched on the effect of digital technology. Both directors disagree with what the businesses did, selling illegal copies of films (and the way in which the film is presented is very much an anti-editing space. The design often reminds the viewer of Cold War, Red Scare era artwork.), but Ligairi believes that with time, businesses like Clean Flicks are inevitable. As digital technology grows and grows, what will ownership mean? In the music industry, the term already means very little when it comes to records and MP3s. Perhaps no medium is safe, and it is quite possible that film is next.
As you can see, I've thought a lot about this film. It was very well done, and quite complex, as the issues at play were unraveling during their shooting of the film. Cleanflix's prime focus is Daniel Thompson, and his downfall and criminal issues begin unfolding during production of the movie in a entertaining and surprising way.
From a filmmaker's viewpoint, I think this will become a very important film to movie lovers and movie makers alike. I cannot stop thinking about what the future holds for unknowns like myself. How much control can we have? Will there be such a thing as creative control? That, coupled with the issue of what is "suggestive" keeps haunting me. Seeing the film, I found it odd that the logos of many of these companies were suggestive in and of themselves. The Clean Flicks logo is a winking face. It's as if they themselves are selling sexuality!
Not to mention that while the film does not shame the Mormon church, the profitable entity in this case is the Mormon community. Who were the people that edited these films for the Mormon community? Surely it wasn't practicing Mormons; that'd be sinful. So, are people outside of the Mormon community profiting off these sensitive people? Is that moral?
The questions never end, and they are certainly worth asking. If you love film, you need to seek out Cleanflix.
No comments:
Post a Comment