In This Week
Looking for all the action, adventure, and comedy of Hollywood's biggest hits -- without the pesky sex, swearing, or violence? For no-R-rated-movie-abiding Mormons, CleanFlicks and its edited films were a godsend. The only problem was that the films' copyright holders weren't happy with the idea of someone else chopping up their intellectual property.In their new documentary, "CleanFlix," Utah filmmakers Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi tell the story of the rental chain -- and the culture that spawned its success -- while following founder Daniel Thompson through a bitter lawsuit and public sex scandal. Throughout the film, the directors refuse to take sides (even they seem to have different opinions on the matter), but certainly raise plenty of questions about censorship, religion and Hollywood.
IN recently caught up with the two filmmakers as "CleanFlix" made its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival.
Why was this was an important story to tell?
James » It is a topic that is widely misunderstood. We also wanted to ask questions about art, censorship, religion and sex, and I think the film brings up a lot of ideas that are worth talking about.
Ligairi » I'm interested in art that expands understanding of the human experience. We're showing the world this specific cross-section of American culture that many people have no idea even exists. But the film is even fresh for those that think they know the culture and the topic.
You are heavily ingrained in both the art of film and Utah culture. Is there a clear-cut right and wrong in this story from either side?
James » Yes and no. It's clearly wrong to make money by altering and selling copyrighted material that doesn't belong to you. That's as clear-cut as it gets, at least for me. However, if there were legal ways to do it, I think that question becomes much more difficult to answer.
Ligairi » The movie answers a lot of questions, but it also challenges the audience to ask some questions of themselves. There are a lot of gray areas here. I have varying opinions on the issue depending on what angle I am looking at it from. The idea of censorship is very troubling, and that is key here, but if we look beyond that for a moment, there are all kinds of other issues at play. Making the film has helped me realize how nuanced the potentially polarizing discussion actually is. The film is full of information (and hopefully insight), but it also requires some work on the part of the viewer. I'm more proud of that than anything else.
As a filmmaker, what would be your response if you found that edited copies of "CleanFlix" were floating around?
James » I would be upset, especially considering the fact that we've talked about doing our own "clean" version of the film. We've spent three years making it and labored over every little decision. It would be frustrating to see a lot of that work being arbitrarily changed by a third party.
Ligairi » Personally, I could care less. I don't believe in auteurs. Art belongs to the world. While there is great meaning for me personally in the act of creation, I can't deny that the film changes depending on the viewer. Each audience member brings something different to the table and what they bring literally has the power to change the meaning of the film -- if only to them.
The end user has some rights. I'm not talking about this in the capitalistic sort of way that the sanitizers often do -- the 'I bought it and I can do what I want' argument. I'm speaking from the theoretical standpoint that, as a filmmaker, my transmission hasn't served its full purpose until it is decoded by a receiver, and try as I might, I can never control the way it is received. If that answer is pretentious or over-intellectualized, the shorter answer is that we are toying with doing our own clean version anyway, so it probably won't come up."
If clean movies were ever able given a legal green light, do you think there is a market for edited films outside of Utah?
James » "People often talk about this large market for sanitized films outside of Utah, and I suspect that there probably is, but one can only speculate. People tend to point at polls or cultural identity as a way to identify such a market, but CleanFlicks and companies like CleanFlicks never really took off in other places, so it's difficult to say."
Ligairi » "Time will tell. All indicators point to a considerably large market. My guess is that it is as big as the market for unrated films, for instance. CleanFlicks had about 70 locations across the United States and was substantially bigger online. In the end, 80 percent of their business was online and outside of the state. We focus on Utah because it took Mormon culture to create CleanFlicks, but it was spreading everywhere and they were still growing at a rapid rate when they were shut down."
Because Walmart refuses to sell CDs with an Explicit Lyrics label, any artist who wants to sell records puts out a clean version. Would filmmakers be willing to do the same if a big retailer said 'No more R-rated movies'?
James » Filmmakers edit their films for airlines and television, so I imagine that they probably would, but again, that is just speculation. I guess it depends on the studios that own the films in question.
Ligairi » The music industry is probably the best comparison, yet it almost never comes up. Mainstream artists like Eminem, or whoever, don't complain about doing their clean versions because it is just part of the industry -- the same way television and airline edits are part of the movie industry. A lot of cooler independent musicians opt out and decide that they would rather leave their music intact than have it play on the radio or be sold at Walmart. That is a financial sacrifice that they make for their art. You don't see a lot of filmmakers willing to do that.
Though James and Ligairi are busy showing the film off at foreign festivals, they hope to have their U.S. debut at Sundance in January. Until then, Utah audiences can follow the movie's journeys at www.cleanflixthemovie.com.
Direct Link to In This Week
Posts
