Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TIFF Review: Cleanflix [Documentary about how Mormons manage to watch their favorite R-rated movies]
Cinematical ^ | Sep 14th 2009 | Scott Weinberg

Posted on 09/15/2009 8:31:10 PM PDT by Alex Murphy

Even if you're not a resident of Utah, you've surely heard of companies like "Clean Flicks" before. Like, for example, in the virtual pages of this very blog. It's a prickly subject among movie fans, and that's probably an understatement. Basically, several companies in Utah have taken it upon themselves to edit all the "objectionable" material out of Hollywood's hottest films, and many in the Mormon community are more than happy to throw those discs into their DVD players, secure in the knowledge that Braveheart will be less bloody, that Forrest Gump never felt a female embrace, and that Sally Albright never had a fake orgasm in a New York deli.

OK, that's the last batch of lopsided editorializing for me, because while (obviously) I am dead-set opposed to censorship in cinema, I can also empathize with a religious culture that wishes to avoid things they find objectionable. And regardless of my oh-so-open-minded belief system, the plain fact is that we're not here to talk about the Clean Flicks companies. The subject this time around is a new documentary called Cleanflix, a film that attempts to tell the whole tale from beginning to end (and mostly does a fine job of it), but also manages to wander way off-track before all is said and done.

We begin with a simple explanation: That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) have been instructed by their religious leaders to avoid "R-rated fims," although I'd really love to hear with those guys think of the unexpectedly rough violence found in Prince Caspian, which is rated merely "PG" and then (I guess) not actually covered in the Sunday sermon. But there I go with the personal opinions again. (Basically, I believe it's perfectly logical to want to avoid "offensive" material for religious reasons, but by specifically noting the "R rating," isn't the church basically putting way too much faith in the infamously inconsistent MPAA ratings board?) I suppose these are the strange little grey areas that I wish the film had explored with a little more focus.

As it stands, Andrew James' and Joshua Ligairi's Cleanflix is a well-polished, cleanly produced, and adequately informative documentary film about films, but it also manages to gloss over some of the most pertinent issues: The film is more than awash in proclamations about why it's perfectly fine to edit another person's art, but when it comes time to shine the light the other way, to maybe focus on precisely why its wrong to practice any sort of censorship, the filmmakers seem a lot less interested.

Aside from some new and frankly insightful comments from former Mormon and current (R-rated) filmmaker Neil LaBute, all Cleanflix has to offer from the Hollywood perspective is a bunch of years-old clips from guys like Michael Mann, Steven Soderbergh, and Curtis Hanson. And while much of the interview material with Utah educators and journalists is interesting, why do we not hear from a few screenwriters, film critics, or cinema professors who live outside of Utah?

Still, Cleanflix chugs along telling a fairly fascinating story that ultimately boils down to art vs. religion, but then it gets sidetracked with a rather ugly subplot. One of the "Clean Flicks" distributors, you see, turns out to be a rather unsavory fellow, and the co-directors seem to take no small amount of pleasure in painting the guy as a scuzzball villain. We'd have probably drawn that exact conclusion with a considerably subtler approach, and the sudden left turn takes a lot of wind out of the film's sails.

If a documentary film makes a good "small" point, but then fails to follow up on it ... do you praise the small point or see it as a missed opportunity? For example, the film raises a very good question about halfway through: If the Hollywood studios are willing to make "sanitized" versions of R-rated films for airlines and for network television, then why should those versions remain unavailable to "religious folk" who'd prefer them? Hey, good point! So why not head on out to Hollywood and ask a few producers that exact question?

Cleanflix is a handsome effort and a solid conversation piece for movie geeks or anyone who loves to debate the art vs. religion issues. Unfortunately it doesn't dig deep enough and the filmmakers seem to believe that all of the answers to such a tricky question can be found in the backyards of Utah. Clearly that's not the case.


TOPICS: Moral Issues; Other Christian; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: cleanflicks; hollywood
We begin with a simple explanation: That the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a.k.a. Mormons) have been instructed by their religious leaders to avoid "R-rated films," although I'd really love to hear with those guys think of the unexpectedly rough violence found in Prince Caspian, which is rated merely "PG" and then (I guess) not actually covered in the Sunday sermon....by specifically noting the "R rating," isn't the church basically putting way too much faith in the infamously inconsistent MPAA ratings board?)....

....the film raises a very good question about halfway through: If the Hollywood studios are willing to make "sanitized" versions of R-rated films for airlines and for network television, then why should those versions remain unavailable to "religious folk" who'd prefer them?

1 posted on 09/15/2009 8:31:10 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Harry Reid?


2 posted on 09/15/2009 8:43:42 PM PDT by This_far (I too, am Joe Wilson... Obama lies/lied)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Their copy of “A Clockwork Orange” (which I just finished after having not seen it in nearly 20 years) must be, like, 10 minutes long with almost no dialog.


3 posted on 09/15/2009 8:44:57 PM PDT by Little Pig (Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

So are you bashing mormons. What is with all of the mormon bashing on this site. Maybe some people are sick and tired of the trash coming out of hollywood and want to watch movies with their families. enough with the mormon bashing nobody is perfect.


4 posted on 09/15/2009 9:25:22 PM PDT by Angrymanatlibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angrymanatlibs

Relax. Some people on this site are serious and some are just jokers. The poster of this article falls into the latter category.


5 posted on 09/15/2009 9:39:09 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

In a way I think this is a stupid idea. And one of the worst things I ever watched was an edited for basic cable version of “glen garry glen ross” with a ridiculous dub of Jack Lemmon saying “Kiss my act!” Dreadful.

On the other hand tonight we watched the oh-so-amusing finale of “My Cousin Vinny” and I was a little shocked at how many f-words there were and really thought it detracted, rather than added, to what could otherwise be just a nice, funny, FAMILY movie.

I also though “Topsy Turvey” about Gilbert & Sullivan (I really don’t know how fictionalized or truthful it is) was RUINED by needless focus on each man’s sexual unhappiness. Well maybe only one was unhappy (at least his wife seemed quite depressed) and the other was maybe a happy pervert. It could have been such a lovely movie, but instead it was a lovely movie mashed up with an over-sexed psychodrama, and really, who needs that?

So, to me there are two sides to this argument. I might just buy a cleaned up topsy turvey from these folks, if they had it.


6 posted on 09/15/2009 9:42:00 PM PDT by jocon307 ( We're dealing with COMMUNISTS here, folks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
LOL! This must be how they edit: porn Don't worry. It's work safe.
7 posted on 09/15/2009 10:05:40 PM PDT by ironwill (III - Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angrymanatlibs

I didn’t see any Mormon bashing here. The article isn’t altogether nice to Mormons, but it’s an article that has been posted for comment.

There certainly is some Mormon bashing on this site, but this isn’t it.


8 posted on 09/15/2009 10:09:12 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I am dead-set opposed to censorship in cinema,

This isn't really censorship. Nobody stopped the filmmakers from making the film they wanted to.

This service simply makes it easy for people to choose what they will watch.

It might be a violation of intellectual property rights, but it's not censorship.

But does the company really edit any movie for which the filmmaker has denied them permission? That's the question I want to have answered.

9 posted on 09/15/2009 10:11:52 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Angrymanatlibs

I love how the author totally glosses over the actual crime that this guy committed. He was paying 14 and 15 year-old girls $20 to have sex with him. According to the author of the review, this action is not worthy of public humiliation.

“One of the “Clean Flicks” distributors, you see, turns out to be a rather unsavory fellow, and the co-directors seem to take no small amount of pleasure in painting the guy as a scuzzball villain. We’d have probably drawn that exact conclusion with a considerably subtler approach, and the sudden left turn takes a lot of wind out of the film’s sails.”


10 posted on 09/15/2009 10:26:18 PM PDT by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

What’s the difference between editing a movie and editing a song for radio broadcast?


11 posted on 09/15/2009 10:28:46 PM PDT by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I agree. It’s okay for airlines but not for the rest of us.

A lot of films have only one or two scenes that are objectionable, and I’ve seen a lot of R rated films that had better moral themes than PG 13 ones.

The real shame is that a lot of the objectionable scenes were put in there to get an R rating...and ironically, often they distract one from the plot.


12 posted on 09/16/2009 4:10:06 AM PDT by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Pig

Hey, “Caligula” is just 15 seconds long.


13 posted on 09/16/2009 3:38:06 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Yet Marriott hotels (owned by a mormon) is one of the largest providers of porn in the nation - go figure.


14 posted on 09/16/2009 4:05:16 PM PDT by Godzilla (3-7-77)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson