TIFF Review: Cleanflix

As a Mormon, who works in the film industry in the backyards of Utah, well... I can't really offer much insight, aside from this:
In a talk that President Ezra Taft Benson (the leader of the church at the time) gave to members in 1981, he told them to not watch R-rated movies.

The current leaders of the church have this to say:
Don't attend or participate in any form of entertainment, including concerts, movies, and videocassettes, that is vulgar, immoral, inappropriate, suggestive, or pornographic in any way. Movie ratings not always accurately reflect offensive content. Don't be afraid to walk out of a movie, turn off a television set, or change a radio station if what’s being presented does not meet your Heavenly Father's standards. And do not read books or magazines or look at pictures that are pornographic or that present immorality as acceptable.
I personally am irritated as hell when people just blanket avoid R-rated films, but happily watch Prince Caspian.

But here's the thing. There are people in every religion, ethnography, or any random assemblage of people who prefer not to think. Hence, Transformers 2's B.O. take. So I happily sit the fence with you, Scott. And I'm disappointed that Cleanflix wasn't more interesting, I live in a fascinating, if occasionally irritating, culture that deserves to be explored a bit more, or at least with a broader scope.

Reply

I agree with Dyslexicon's points right down the line. A fascinating topic, especially since there is a market for this audience.

Of course, as a Mormon who watches almost all ratings, I want to watch good movies, regardless of content. I will admit, even though it pains me to say it, that sometimes gratuitous __(whatever)__ is annoying, because so often it doesn't advance the story. I can deal with it, try to put it into context, and move on, but other people can't get past it.

I've always wondered why NOT offer the TV or airplane edits? The studios could expand their market share and make even more money. Equally annoying, that the theater edit is sometimes unavailable on DVD (I'm looking in your direction, Anchorman) and if we want to see the show we're forced to view/purchase unrated versions instead.

Reply

I hope you get some comments from people other than Mormons (I'm another one :)).

I think people should certainly be allowed to set up a moral fence on something as arbitrary as the MPAA's rating if they want (I agree with Scott that that is way too trusting of that severely partial group), but don't try to peek through a hole in the fence then. An edit of a movie should only be made by those who own it. Don't agree with their edit? Don't see it.

That being said, I know there are edits made to make films more "family friendly" for TV and airplanes. The studios are missing a great opportunity by not offering these "studio-approved" cleaner versions of the films for sale on DVD.

If you believe a film is SO important to see that you are willing to watch a bastardized version of it, I would think you would feel it just as important to see the filmmaker's original vision.

Reply

As an artist myself, I cannot understand why anyone would want to cover up my nudes for the sake of enjoying my work without dirty thoughts, what an insult to any creator's intellect. I actually feel sad for a group of people who close their eyes to things that are there already, part of every day life. If only not looking at violent films or sexual content could make the world a better place.
Sorry, this is just wrong.

Reply

Non-Mormon here. I can't rely reply... I can sum up my opinions on all the key topics of the subject with one word "Ridiculous".

Isn't what they're doing illegal anyway. They are reproducing someones work...I assume they are selling burned DVDs. I wish the studio would get their legions of lawyers and put a stop to it.

Reply

Athiest here who's actually seen the film.

I'm with Scott on his findings of the doc. There were so many far more interesting directions this doc could have explored and instead it took a really lame one with total lack of full disclosure.

I wouldn't say they tried to portray him as scuzzball though. They were pretty clear about their feelings about Daniel during the Q&A session. In fact, as I said elsewhere, at best this picture shows the hypocracy of one mans morality or at worst it belittles the victims of the crime, gives the criminal an exclusive voice and potentially paints all the other distributors (and mormons for that matter) with the same brush with the editing placement of one of their comic-relief interviewees.

What I'd rather have seen was elaboration on the idea of "My Morality Trumps Your Morality" or why Mormons lack interest of self-examination as is suggested in one interview snippet.

While there is a logical point raised by the business owners about why do the producers not make the airline/tv versions available, I don't think it's an interesting question. Ultimately I'm against ANY compromise a director makes with his/her film, and I assure you they don't want to do it in the first place and I believe ultimately that the few movies (because it's not all of them) that do have edited versions for forced consumption only exist out of obliging a contract. What the video stores were doing was very grey initially (which is saying something to begin with about morality) and then deemed to be very illegal and hence circumvented by those who prefer capitalism over their piety.

Ultimately for "Hollywood" it would be a massive can of worms and this is why they don't do it.

What I really wanted to know was how do Mormons reconcile in their head that obviously these films are not made for them. This is a "cake and eat it too" situation.

There are plenty of films out there that should fit well into their morality requirements. Leave the rest of them alone.

I mean, I don't like sappy emo vampire movies, but it's preposturous to go around trying to edit gore, nudity and language into them. Why is taking it out not viewed as equally ridiculous?

Ultimately I think the filmmakers may have fallen prey to being too close to the subject being examined. The piece lacks any bite and they all but say they didn't want to really piss anyone off during the Q&A. Mission accomplished.

Reply

Here's another comment from another Mormon (and cinephile.) I lived in Utah for years, and was disgusted (with a capital D) with companies like cleanflix and all their insidious counterparts. I'm opposed to censorship of any kind, no matter what the medium. If you can't handle the Godfather because Sonny bangs a bridesmaid or Michael shoots a cop in the head, then don't watch it; try sticking to your morals rather than trying to circumvent them.
Personally, I think you're missing out on great art that has the power to challenge, change, and better you when you try to apply rating-based standards to your evaluation of said art, but that's just me.

Furthermore, I refuse to even acknowledge the rating system, and can honestly say that I don't think for one second about the MPAA rating of a film before, during, or after seeing it.

I just want to go on records, along with many other commenters on this board, that there were - when these companies were at their peak - those of us in Utah who both belonged to the predominant faith AND actively voiced our oppisition to these companies and the hypocrisies (and crimes against film) they engendered.

As for this film, I plan on avoiding it - I don't need yet another reminder of how infuriating this whole thing was. Plus, it doesn't sound particularly good.

Reply

I am a non-Mormon currently living in predominantly LDS society. My husband likes to relate a story he heard from a woman who complained that she didn't like "being forced" to take her eight children past the naked statue of David on the way to the low-priced buffet in Las Vegas. There are many advantages to living in this area, but it comes with a few trade-offs. For example, when a Rodin exhibit came to town, the nudes were not shown (vs, say, being sequestered in a separate room for those who wouldn't be offended). It is rather interesting that studios don't consider selling their "sanitized" versions of movies. However, there is always Clearplay for those who are serious about viewing edited DVDs. This way, you can buy the disks the way the director intended and still have offensive items removed. However, since I watch things uncut, I wouldn't know how extensive their library is or how well they keep up with things. I know that a friend that used Clearplay was quite satisfied.

Reply

Interesting conversation. Some commenters seem to believe than anything an artist presents in a film is "art" and therefore should be sacred and untouched. I remember years ago when a gay artist in New York displayed photos of men lying in bathtubs of urine or closeup photos of men urinating. That show sparked a vigorous debate about what was "art" and when it may be okay to censor it.

What is interesting to contemplate is that I'm certain that their are certain depictions of scenes in movies that even the most liberal and free-thinking "artist" would most likely find objectionable. How would you view a version of Schindler's List that included graphic scenes of child sexual abuse? How about a film that showed the joys of pedophilia? Is it still art--or are there still some things in the world that most people believe are patently objectionable and shouldn't be showed on film?

If you can answer that, yes, there are still some things that you would find objectionable in a film, then you should also be gracious, mature, and intelligent enough that everyone has their limits. Latter-day Saints may have lower tolerances for certain things they find objectionable--but why argue about it? I would argue that most people have some sort of limit about what they would expose themselves to.

Frankly, I think it's easy to make a distinction between an original versus "edited" movie. There are many movies that I would like to enjoy with my children--yet I don't want them to see a particular scene. I may find the general story great and uplifting or compelling in some way--but I, as a parent, don't think that my kids need to see a particular scene. In that case, I'm happy to use some sort of edited version--be it an edited DVD or an on-the-fly alternative like ClearPlay.

And, yes, there is a hypocrisy when it comes to directors allowing edited movies on airplanes yet they don't allow them in people's homes.

Reply