2009.09.19 10:01:50
Vickie

Only one film on the docket yesterday – the documentary Cleanflix (7/8), which examines Utah-based companies that “sanitize” Hollywood films by editing out sex, nudity, profanity and violence. Co-directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi profile a number of shop owners, who explain their businesses and the demand for the services they offer... especially given their location in the Mormon-centric state, where watching R-rated films is prohibited by religion. As the film unspools, though, it becomes as much a look at how quickly money can corrupt as it is about artistic integrity vs. censorship.

And, even more interestingly enough, the owners of these companies actually make some valid points – most notably: there is a big market for “clean” versions of Hollywood films, but Hollywood isn’t providing them to the consumers. Studios edit films for use on airplanes or television or foreign markets, but those same edited films are not available for rent or purchase by Americans. Why? There’s some great discourse on the subject, and a number of notable directors – including Steven Soderbergh, Neil LaBute, Michael Apted and Michael Mann – contribute to the film.

There was a fantastic and super-long post-film Q&A with the directors, a couple of their subjects and a number of crew, and I was totally impressed with the intelligent questions posed by my fellow audience members.

Speaking of Q&A sessions, I’d also like to reiterate something I’ve cited in TIFF diaries and assorted film fest coverage I’ve done in the past: all moderators are not created equal, and TIFF seems to have the broadest spectrum in terms of quality. Some are really awful (they shall remain nameless but I quietly groan whenever they take the stage) and some, like Sarafina DeFelice, are awesome. She’s new, but is becoming the Myrocia Watamaniuk of TIFF 2009 for me.



  TIFF 2009
 

2009.09.19 20:05:54

This sounds really interesting! I remember hearing about the "edited" version of Titanic, which of course cut out the steamy, yet tame car-sex scene, and probably kept in the disaster and horrific loss of life scenes (because that is less offensive). Sound like this would be a good companion piece to This Film is Not Yet Rated!

 
 
2009.09.20 05:59:39

It really IS an interesting film... because, solely based on its description in the program book, I went in with certain expectations. Namely, that these companies were offensive and I would instantly side with Hollywood.

But I was surprised at the valid arguments the company owners make for what they're doing. Sure, it's wrong to illegally copy the DVDs and sell them, but the idea for the service they're providing is actually sound and I suspect a lot of the uproar in Hollywood has little to do with artistic integrity and more to do with the studios' bottom line.

 
 
2009.09.20 17:44:00

Hmm. I don't know. Art, studio agenda, whatever--a work should be edited only by those who own it. That said, aren't edited versions of films shown on TV in order to meet network standards? This is kind of like Catholics who used to eat lobster on no-meat Fridays. A member of LDS who genuinely sought spiritual freedom from the portrayal of sex and violence would not go seeking these edited versions.

 
 
2009.09.21 04:10:33

That's exactly their point, though -- the studios own the films (not the filmmakers) and edit them for airlines and network TV, but those edited versions are not available to the general public. Why not? They clearly exist, and no filmmaker has ever raised a stink about an edited version of his/her film being shown on, say, ABC on a Saturday night.

I'm siding with the principle, not the practice.

 
 
Reply this post
Username:

E-mail:

  Enter text shown in left: