Joshua Ligairi » 06.09.11 »
Here's the first look at a trailer for what seems to be another entry in the "Film I Wish I'd Made" pantheon. If Errol Morris' new documentary, TABLOID (about the alleged abduction of Mormon missionary), is even a fraction as tantalizing as this trailer is, we're in for quite a treat.
Showing posts with label TIFF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TIFF. Show all posts
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Monday, February 8, 2010
PRESS: Toronto Screen Shot's Cleanflix Interview
An interview with Cleanflix co-directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi by Toronto Screen Shot's James McNally. Direct link to the original article at Toronto Screen Shot's website here.
James McNally » 02.08.10 »
Interview: Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi
My first film at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival was Cleanflix (review), a documentary which explored the issues surrounding the sale and rental of edited versions of R-rated movies to observant Mormons in Utah. I knew that after seeing the film, I wanted to ask the creators many more questions than they could have fielded during the post-screening Q&A. So, thanks to David Magdael and Margot Hardy from TC:DM Associates, I was able to sit down for half an hour with the creators of the film during what must have been a very hectic week for them. In addition to co-directors Andrew James (on the left in the picture below) and Joshua Ligairi (on the right), we were also joined by producer Amber Bollinger.
Since the interview deals with some plot points in the film, it really makes sense to read my review first.
James McNally (JM): I’ll start by asking you how difficult it must have been to decide where to go with the film once the scandal around Daniel breaks. What were your discussions like about how much of the film you wanted to give over to that story?
Andrew James (AJ): In the beginning, we viewed Daniel more as a resource. It wasn’t until about two-thirds of the way into shooting that we realized that there was more to this Daniel guy, that maybe he could help guide the film a little bit, so we started focusing more on him. But it wasn’t until we started editing the film that we realized how significant he was to the film we were making.
Joshua Ligairi (JL): We were focusing on a couple of other store owners just as prominently as him that didn’t even make it into the film.
JM: I guess the contrast with Robert (another store owner), there was a real contrast between them.
JL: Which was nice. It was nice to see people who were doing it sincerely and then someone else who was manipulating the audience for their own benefit.
JM: In my opinion, you have about three films worth of stuff crammed into Cleanflix. One of the things I found interesting was just the exploration of Mormon filmmakers. You talked to Richard Dutcher, for instance. Strangely enough, there was just an article in Cinemascope magazine (here in Canada) about Richard Dutcher, and it got me wondering. What I wanted to ask was if you think there is any official encouragement given by the Church to Mormon filmmakers, to give people an alternative to Hollywood entertainment?
JL: No. The Church self-produces some films, but they’re more about the Mormon story, they’re about the founding story of the Church, they’re about Jesus. The Mormon cinematic movement that’s happening, in Utah especially, is not connected to the Church at all, although there’s appreciation for those films from the Church leadership.
JM: I know there are some that would never break out of Utah, but for instance Jared Hess has done really well.
JL: There was a World War 2 film, Saints and Soldiers, that won an Independent Spirit Award a few years ago, and stuff like that, so there are some crossovers.
JM: But the Church doesn’t have any official stance.
Amber Bollinger (AB): No.
JL: Richard Dutcher was actually very successful, but within the Christian evangelical culture in the United States, they’re not accepting of Mormons as Christians, so it was difficult to market those films to them.
JM: In the Cinemascope article, he talks about that and how he’s tried to make himself more of a spiritual filmmaker, but nobody trusts that. You’re either not spiritual enough, or you’re too spiritual. Why do you think that guys like Dutcher and Neil LaBute others end up leaving the Church? Do you think the pressure’s too much, that they can’t make films that explore spirituality?
JL: Both Richard and Neil have had very specific run-ins with Church leadership with regard to the content of their films, and I think that probably has something to do with it.
AJ: I also think there’s a constant struggle in how to reconcile your art with the values that the Church is espousing. Because they have very specific ideas about how media affects you. It’s talked about a lot in church. So I think filmmakers who are trying to be challenging really struggle with that. I know I do, and that’s probably one reason why I don’t go to church anymore. Josh is still practicing, and that’s great, but for me, I was having a hard time reconciling that, going to church and hearing people say all these things that I didn’t agree with.
JL: At Brigham Young University, in the film program, the guys there struggle with this all the time. They’re just starting out as film students and they’re trying to make these films that represent their artistic viewpoints, and even in university they’re not allowed to make some of the films they want to make.
JM: Just to give you a little bit of background, I have about 20 years of experience with the evangelical church, and have gone through the same process so I can feel where you’re coming from on a lot of these issues. I wanted to bring up that question of how working on the film affected your own faith. You’re free to tell me to mind my own business, of course. Andrew, since you’ve already told me about your struggles with your faith, do you think the film has had anything to do with that?
AJ: I don’t think so. It’s been an ongoing process for me. Without giving too much away, a lot of personal things in my life have led me down that path.
AB: Any chance for self-exploration, too. The film talks about, you know, why not, why not ask questions about what you believe? Through the film, if that’s part of it, or whatever means you can. I think media’s a great way to do that, to think about what it is you believe and why.
JM: My main criticism of the film is that I thought Daniel’s troubles allowed the audience to paint him as the villain, to enjoy that irony and then to forget about the issues that you’ve raised in the first part of the film. I was very curious to see how advocates of copyright reform from one side of the political spectrum would interact with people like Cleanflix from the other end of the political spectrum who are doing kind of the same thing but for a different reason.
JL: The sticking point for me and for those two communities is the censorship. I tend to come down on the side of the end user. The fact that they’re censoring something that they haven’t created is problematic for me.
JM: But are they not just “mashing up” the film?
JL: I think that’s something that Hollywood has to wake up to, and figure out how to have a relationship with those end users, because people are going to stop paying for it if they can’t do what they want with it.
JM: I think that’s what’s started to happen.
AJ: That’s a very interesting point. I totally see that point of view and I actually agree with that point of view. But it’s hard for me to wrap my head around it in terms of Cleanflix. I don’t feel like that’s what they’re trying to do.
JM: But aren’t we still fighting for the same thing?
JL: But that’s not what the mashup guys are trying to do either. They’re just trying to dance.
JM: Now we see video mashups too.
JL: We were talking about Brokeback to the Future or The Phantom Edit, where they took Jar Jar Binks out of Star Wars Episode 1. I think now that editing technology for films is going to become as available as it is for music technology, we’re going to see a lot more of this stuff.
JM: And we do laugh at those because they’re entertaining, but the films that Cleanflix makes are entertaining to a different audience. I think there’s a really good argument from those guys’ perspective that they’re just doing the same thing.
JL: Everything you are saying is exactly right. I have no problem with the end user remixing and remashing in any way they see fit. I have hard a time with this issue. The reaction is one of, do we want to live in a world where corporations tell us what to do with our property in the privacy of our home? The distinction here, and it is an important distinction, is censorship.
AJ: I wanted to comment on your criticism. I feel that, at least for me, the film is not an issue film. We’re trying to tell a story, and so I feel that that is why Daniel works in the film. Obviously, there are issues being explored in the film, for sure, but we feel like we’re trying to focus more on telling the story. I feel like you can’t tell the story of Cleanflix without telling what happened to Daniel, and I think Daniel helps inform that story, he sort of personifies that story.
JL: And you can see where that community can go wrong, where those kind of ideals can take a dark turn.
JM: I can see that but what I was disturbed at in my screening was that the audience was so very smug, like “oh, we’re liberals and it just figures that that guy is going to…”
AJ: They took so much joy in it.
JL: Yeah, they were laughing at some really dark stuff.
AJ: We were uncomfortable with that as well.
JL: When we were filming that, Andrew was in tears.
AB: That reaction was absolutely surprising.
JL: Our Sunday screening was a different story. No one laughed. Different audiences are always going to take something different from the film.
AB: And possibly, the audience that went to see it on the premiere night were people who expected a certain message from the film. Possibly the crowd mentality of the premiere night, let’s see what this film is about. Maybe those people had preconceived notions about what the film was about. As Josh was saying, our Sunday screening was very different, people did not laugh at those same parts. And when Daniel was kind of, headed downhill, if you will, there wasn’t laughter. It was different.
JM: That’s interesting to hear. I was disappointed in the crowd I was with, but I just hope that it doesn’t overwhelm the film.
AB: I don’t think that it will. I really feel that it may have been a premiere type of reaction.
JL: I think people think they know what the movie is already. They think it’s going to be funny and quirky and making fun of Mormons or something like that, and it’s not really that movie.
JM: And your soundtrack, and your editing does make it feel like that a little bit. Which leads me to ask if you’re finished editing the film now, after seeing the audience reactions at the two screenings.
AJ: Maybe some minor changes.
JL: We’re pretty happy with the film, for the most part. Now that we’ve had some feedback, it’s good.
AB: And seeing it on a gigantic screen always changes things. You can watch it on your biggest 50″ screen at home but it’s just different seeing it, with a crowd, first of all, and also on a huge screen. You’re like, Oh, didn’t notice that before.
JL: Little elements of production value that we’re definitely going to work on now.
JM: Those are things that people probably didn’t notice, but you did.
AB: Yeah, seeing it a thousand times.
JM: I noticed that you don’t have anyone from the Church on camera speaking about this issue. Was that a conscious decision or did no one want to talk to you?
JL: We did have someone at one point and we just realized…there were a lot of things we would have liked. I would have liked to show the diversity of the LDS community, for instance, because we were just focusing on this one group that watches edited movies. But it wouldn’t have made the film better. It would have made for a more nuanced discussion, and I would have appreciated that, as someone who’s from that community myself and probably other people of faith would have wanted to see that stuff, but it wasn’t furthering the story aspect of it. We were getting bogged down in that first half, because the balance was, how much do people need to understand about Mormons, and how much do people need to understand about edited movies before we can start telling the story.
AJ: We interviewed a guy who was like a “pseudo” representative of the Church.
JL: He was a media representative of the Church, but he wasn’t a religious figure.
AJ: And he sort of felt awkward speaking for the Church, but he did say some interesting things about the R rating, and how it was a cultural sort of thing.
JL: He was kind of disappointed in the idea that people would like edited movies. He had also been a professor at Brigham Young University and he said we get these students coming in and they don’t want to think for themselves, they want rules. And that was really disheartening for him to see that, too.
JM: I think that’s human nature. People want rules.
AB: Structure.
JM: I’m curious to see how Church leaders react to people who are so desperate to follow the letter of the law but who are kind of ignoring the whole spirit of it. I mean technically they’re not breaking the rules, but you know…
JL: The thing with the Mormon audience, though, is that in their minds they’re following the spirit of the law because they’re trying to take it even further than the commandment they’ve been given. So the thing is to avoid a certain rating and they’re going even further. In the Mormon religion, they ask you to abstain from certain things like alcohol and coffee, and you see that taken even further. So now we don’t drink Coke because that has caffeine in it and maybe that’s why they said don’t drink coffee. So people are always trying to go further, and self-censoring, and that was what was really interesting to me. Our film isn’t a doctrinal film, it’s a cultural film. The Church isn’t necessarily enforcing this but people are taking it upon themselves to self-censor and that was interesting to me.
JM: But isn’t there an audience that says that even those edited films aren’t going far enough?
AJ: Absolutely.
AB: Definitely. The sample of people in the film are the ones who are coming to Cleanflix so it definitely doesn’t represent every Mormon.
JL: There are people on both sides. There are people who say, I don’t care, I’m going to watch R-rated movies, and that’s a big portion too. And then there are some for whom Cleanflix isn’t good enough, who say we shouldn’t be supporting these Hollywood movies at all. Andrew has an interesting story about that, actually.
AJ: Yeah, I interviewed this woman who was a former employee at another edited movies store. One of the comments she made was “Who’s the creep in the back room watching R-rated movie after R-rated movie?” I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea of Cleanflix, that someone actually has to sit through that filthy material, sort of to take one for the team. So there is a wide range of diversity on the issue. I think in a general sense, Mormons are trying to protect their families from what they consider harmful or evil elements.
JL: And in that respect, it’s not just Mormons. There are a lot of people throughout the world. This market is a big market, and I think people would embrace this if they knew…
JM: You guys must be reading my questions. I was going to suggest that the evangelical Christian market, which must be three or four times the size of the Mormon market, would be very interested.
JL: I think that’s why the Cleanflix guys tried to separate it from Mormonism, because they’re afraid that if it gets tagged as a Mormon thing, they can’t sell as many movies in the South.
JM: And I know that in Canada and parts of the States, there are conservative Muslim audiences, conservative Hindu audiences that would probably go for the same sort of edited movies. Do you know if the edited movie companies have tried to reach those markets at all?
JL: They were trying to reach out to those audiences when they were stopped, and they had 80 locations throughout the United States, they were doing online in Canada. They were spreading, and according to the store owners, everything was on the way up; they had just figured out their business model and they were about to capitalize on it when this all happened.
AJ: We could easily speculate that they would have had success in these other areas.
JL: We choose to focus on Mormonism because that’s where it started and that culture created it.
JM: You indicated too that some of these companies may still be operating online?
JL: That’s one of those things about the digital age. There’s no controlling it anymore, and it’s going to happen. And so if the studios were smart, I think they should figure out a way to handle this themselves because otherwise it’s going to happen without them.
JM: Did you get anyone representing the Directors Guild of America to talk to you?
AJ: We talked to their lawyers and PR people from the DGA who were fairly friendly and interested in helping us, but with all the big names involved and the bureaucracy, it was just hard for us to get at those people.
JM: Do you think they consider it a dead issue now?
JL: They would like it to be a dead issue, because they’ve won and they don’t want it to continue. So it’s good for them if it goes away.
JM: But you do reveal in the film that they do release edited movies for airlines, so what is stopping them from just expanding that?
JL: No one knows. The studios control the copyright and they’re not releasing them.
JM: I just wonder if they feel that the market is too small.
JL: They call it a small market.
JM: But it’s probably a lot bigger than they realize.
JL: An ABC News poll said 45% of the people in the United States would want edited movies if they could have access to them.
AJ: But the Hollywood Reporter said that the studios want to control this, and if people start editing, and releasing edited versions, demand would become too great and it might take away from the theatrical run of some of these films because people will wait for the clean version to come out on DVD.
JM: I guess they figure that the rating system is working well enough.
JL: They like the way it’s working for them.
JM: Have you seen Kirby Dick’s This Film Is Not Yet Rated? A lot of the same issues come up in that.
JL: Yeah, that film was a big help to us as we were getting into this.
JM: I wondered if you’d seen another film here at TIFF, called Dogtooth (review). It’s a Greek film about a guy who keeps his family locked in their house. His children are now in their 20s and they just play games all day, they’re kind of infantile. The director said it was about the extremes to which people will go to protect their families. Of course, it doesn’t end well. And I guess neither does your story. I wonder why the Church feels that keeping bad things from outside is going to make us better people?
AJ: There’s a lot of fear. People are afraid. I’m not going to speak for the Church, but I think culturally there’s a lot of fear that these things are going to get in and affect you, you know to pervert your sexuality as someone says in the film.
JL: If you open that door…
AJ: People don’t trust themselves. You know, if I look at this, I might have some bad thoughts and do something that I might regret.
JM: But you think of it as an outside influence and never something inside of us?
JL: It’s a question of purity, and the idea is that these things stain you, you can’t get rid of that stain. I mean they believe in the idea of repentance, but it’s better if you keep yourself pure of this stuff, and that’s better for you.
JM: I mean I’m curious, because the Christian doctrine is that we’re already born sinful and that we need to be forgiven.
JL: It is part of Mormon doctrine that we’re here to make mistakes and learn from them, but you avoid those mistakes and obedience is the big thing.
JM: So they think you learn more by not making the mistakes?
JL: I don’t know.
AJ: Totally. Yeah, that’s really weird.
AB: It’s not just the media. The Church also teaches you to surround yourself with good people, surround yourself with good things. You know, cleanliness is godliness, there are so many things.
JM: Which is totally common sense.
JL: And it’s not all avoidance. Within the culture it becomes avoidance. Within the doctrine of the Church, it’s “seek after good things.” One of the kids in the films says “I’d rather read a good clean book and watch a good clean movie.” Find the good things, but within the culture it’s easier to follow a rule.
JM: How do you know what’s good until you discover it?
AJ: One of the things that’s interesting to me about this is that I think a lot of these films could help open their eyes to some different issues, help them become aware of cultures in different parts of the world, human experience, help them build empathy with other human beings. And so by shutting themselves out from these films, when you’re living in Utah, or actually, anywhere. But if you’re living a sheltered life, sometimes a film is the only way to expose yourselves to outside things and I think it’s really sheltering to say no.
JM: Another film that this reminds me of is Son of Rambow. Have you seen that?
AB: Yeah. It’s the same.
JL: Yeah.
JM: It’s the same idea. You need some way to connect with the outside world and unfortunately some might choose bad ones, but you can also recommend good ones. What are your plans for screening the film in Utah?
JL: We would love to have our American premiere in Utah.
JM: But it’s going to be R-rated, isn’t it?
JL: We’ve joked about making a Cleanflix version of our movie, and it’s a joke but it would also be a great way to target that audience. Hopefully there are issues discussed in the film that they could benefit from.
JM: A lot of the humour came from showing both the unedited and edited stuff, though. I was just amazed at films like Fargo and The Big Lebowski being edited. I mean, how long was the edited version of The Big Lebowski, 30 minutes? So some of that stuff adds a lot of humour to it.
JL: Yeah, that’s unfortunate, but even with The Big Lebowski and Fargo, there’s a chance we could still get a PG-13 in the United States, and keep those clips in.
JM: I also find this issue in the evangelical Christian community, that violence is not as bad as sex, for some reason I don’t understand, and swearing is also bad, but you can shoot somebody. Somebody’s making these rules, but…
AB: That’s definitely cultural. That’s not doctrine from the Church.
AJ: That goes back to the idea of purity, don’t you think? Like swearing and sexual images.
JL: I mean if you’re not going to do that, you’re definitely not going to kill someone. And that’s another thing in the Church. It’s those little things. They’re guarding themselves against all those little things.
JM: I guess so. It’s a slippery slope. Can I ask you about what your next projects will be?
AJ: We’ve each got our own separate projects which are each exciting on their own terms. I’m working on a documentary about a guy from Peru, during the 80s strapping cocaine to his torso, creating this whole operation smuggling drugs into the United States disguised as a Mormon missionary. And he would take it to Utah and deal it himself and then he’d go back to Peru, go to the jungle and get his cocaine. He did this for two years, made a ton of money, and then eventually gave it up and became a US citizen. It’s his story, this man, and how he became American and his journey and asking some questions along the way.
JL: I’ve got two projects I’m working on. One is about gay Mormons, and that one is a little more Utah-centric, and there’s another project I have that’s more issue-oriented, it’s a little bigger in scope, it’s about people who are robbing Native American graves and then selling the artifacts to big collectors and to museums and other people who don’t know that they’re getting stolen artifacts. There’s a twist, that there are these guys who believe they are being cursed for robbing these graves. Horrible things are happening to these people, suicides, deaths, and they’re happening to all these people who are involved with it. And then we’re also just trying to enlighten people so that they’re not buying the stolen artifacts, we’re trying to highlight the artists and people who are doing it properly and then expose the people who are doing it illegally.
JM: Well I hope that all of those are successful. We also have Hot Docs here in the spring.
JL: Yeah, we would love to be involved with Hot Docs.
JM: Amber, are you working on one of those?
AB: Yeah, I’m actually working on the one with Josh.
JL: It’s called Skeleton Picnic, the Native American one.
AJ: That’s a great title.
JM: Well, they all sound good. I’m looking forward to seeing more from all of you guys. Good luck with the film and enjoy your time at TIFF!
Direct link to the interview at Toronto Screen Shots or follow James McNally on Twitter @toscreenshots.
James McNally » 02.08.10 »Interview: Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi
My first film at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival was Cleanflix (review), a documentary which explored the issues surrounding the sale and rental of edited versions of R-rated movies to observant Mormons in Utah. I knew that after seeing the film, I wanted to ask the creators many more questions than they could have fielded during the post-screening Q&A. So, thanks to David Magdael and Margot Hardy from TC:DM Associates, I was able to sit down for half an hour with the creators of the film during what must have been a very hectic week for them. In addition to co-directors Andrew James (on the left in the picture below) and Joshua Ligairi (on the right), we were also joined by producer Amber Bollinger.
Since the interview deals with some plot points in the film, it really makes sense to read my review first.James McNally (JM): I’ll start by asking you how difficult it must have been to decide where to go with the film once the scandal around Daniel breaks. What were your discussions like about how much of the film you wanted to give over to that story?
Andrew James (AJ): In the beginning, we viewed Daniel more as a resource. It wasn’t until about two-thirds of the way into shooting that we realized that there was more to this Daniel guy, that maybe he could help guide the film a little bit, so we started focusing more on him. But it wasn’t until we started editing the film that we realized how significant he was to the film we were making.
Joshua Ligairi (JL): We were focusing on a couple of other store owners just as prominently as him that didn’t even make it into the film.
JM: I guess the contrast with Robert (another store owner), there was a real contrast between them.
JL: Which was nice. It was nice to see people who were doing it sincerely and then someone else who was manipulating the audience for their own benefit.
JM: In my opinion, you have about three films worth of stuff crammed into Cleanflix. One of the things I found interesting was just the exploration of Mormon filmmakers. You talked to Richard Dutcher, for instance. Strangely enough, there was just an article in Cinemascope magazine (here in Canada) about Richard Dutcher, and it got me wondering. What I wanted to ask was if you think there is any official encouragement given by the Church to Mormon filmmakers, to give people an alternative to Hollywood entertainment?
JL: No. The Church self-produces some films, but they’re more about the Mormon story, they’re about the founding story of the Church, they’re about Jesus. The Mormon cinematic movement that’s happening, in Utah especially, is not connected to the Church at all, although there’s appreciation for those films from the Church leadership.
JM: I know there are some that would never break out of Utah, but for instance Jared Hess has done really well.
JL: There was a World War 2 film, Saints and Soldiers, that won an Independent Spirit Award a few years ago, and stuff like that, so there are some crossovers.
JM: But the Church doesn’t have any official stance.
Amber Bollinger (AB): No.
JL: Richard Dutcher was actually very successful, but within the Christian evangelical culture in the United States, they’re not accepting of Mormons as Christians, so it was difficult to market those films to them.
JM: In the Cinemascope article, he talks about that and how he’s tried to make himself more of a spiritual filmmaker, but nobody trusts that. You’re either not spiritual enough, or you’re too spiritual. Why do you think that guys like Dutcher and Neil LaBute others end up leaving the Church? Do you think the pressure’s too much, that they can’t make films that explore spirituality?
JL: Both Richard and Neil have had very specific run-ins with Church leadership with regard to the content of their films, and I think that probably has something to do with it.
AJ: I also think there’s a constant struggle in how to reconcile your art with the values that the Church is espousing. Because they have very specific ideas about how media affects you. It’s talked about a lot in church. So I think filmmakers who are trying to be challenging really struggle with that. I know I do, and that’s probably one reason why I don’t go to church anymore. Josh is still practicing, and that’s great, but for me, I was having a hard time reconciling that, going to church and hearing people say all these things that I didn’t agree with.
JL: At Brigham Young University, in the film program, the guys there struggle with this all the time. They’re just starting out as film students and they’re trying to make these films that represent their artistic viewpoints, and even in university they’re not allowed to make some of the films they want to make.
JM: Just to give you a little bit of background, I have about 20 years of experience with the evangelical church, and have gone through the same process so I can feel where you’re coming from on a lot of these issues. I wanted to bring up that question of how working on the film affected your own faith. You’re free to tell me to mind my own business, of course. Andrew, since you’ve already told me about your struggles with your faith, do you think the film has had anything to do with that?
AJ: I don’t think so. It’s been an ongoing process for me. Without giving too much away, a lot of personal things in my life have led me down that path.
AB: Any chance for self-exploration, too. The film talks about, you know, why not, why not ask questions about what you believe? Through the film, if that’s part of it, or whatever means you can. I think media’s a great way to do that, to think about what it is you believe and why.
JM: My main criticism of the film is that I thought Daniel’s troubles allowed the audience to paint him as the villain, to enjoy that irony and then to forget about the issues that you’ve raised in the first part of the film. I was very curious to see how advocates of copyright reform from one side of the political spectrum would interact with people like Cleanflix from the other end of the political spectrum who are doing kind of the same thing but for a different reason.JL: The sticking point for me and for those two communities is the censorship. I tend to come down on the side of the end user. The fact that they’re censoring something that they haven’t created is problematic for me.
JM: But are they not just “mashing up” the film?
JL: I think that’s something that Hollywood has to wake up to, and figure out how to have a relationship with those end users, because people are going to stop paying for it if they can’t do what they want with it.
JM: I think that’s what’s started to happen.
AJ: That’s a very interesting point. I totally see that point of view and I actually agree with that point of view. But it’s hard for me to wrap my head around it in terms of Cleanflix. I don’t feel like that’s what they’re trying to do.
JM: But aren’t we still fighting for the same thing?
JL: But that’s not what the mashup guys are trying to do either. They’re just trying to dance.
JM: Now we see video mashups too.
JL: We were talking about Brokeback to the Future or The Phantom Edit, where they took Jar Jar Binks out of Star Wars Episode 1. I think now that editing technology for films is going to become as available as it is for music technology, we’re going to see a lot more of this stuff.
JM: And we do laugh at those because they’re entertaining, but the films that Cleanflix makes are entertaining to a different audience. I think there’s a really good argument from those guys’ perspective that they’re just doing the same thing.
JL: Everything you are saying is exactly right. I have no problem with the end user remixing and remashing in any way they see fit. I have hard a time with this issue. The reaction is one of, do we want to live in a world where corporations tell us what to do with our property in the privacy of our home? The distinction here, and it is an important distinction, is censorship.
AJ: I wanted to comment on your criticism. I feel that, at least for me, the film is not an issue film. We’re trying to tell a story, and so I feel that that is why Daniel works in the film. Obviously, there are issues being explored in the film, for sure, but we feel like we’re trying to focus more on telling the story. I feel like you can’t tell the story of Cleanflix without telling what happened to Daniel, and I think Daniel helps inform that story, he sort of personifies that story.
JL: And you can see where that community can go wrong, where those kind of ideals can take a dark turn.
JM: I can see that but what I was disturbed at in my screening was that the audience was so very smug, like “oh, we’re liberals and it just figures that that guy is going to…”
AJ: They took so much joy in it.
JL: Yeah, they were laughing at some really dark stuff.
AJ: We were uncomfortable with that as well.
JL: When we were filming that, Andrew was in tears.
AB: That reaction was absolutely surprising.
JL: Our Sunday screening was a different story. No one laughed. Different audiences are always going to take something different from the film.
AB: And possibly, the audience that went to see it on the premiere night were people who expected a certain message from the film. Possibly the crowd mentality of the premiere night, let’s see what this film is about. Maybe those people had preconceived notions about what the film was about. As Josh was saying, our Sunday screening was very different, people did not laugh at those same parts. And when Daniel was kind of, headed downhill, if you will, there wasn’t laughter. It was different.
JM: That’s interesting to hear. I was disappointed in the crowd I was with, but I just hope that it doesn’t overwhelm the film.
AB: I don’t think that it will. I really feel that it may have been a premiere type of reaction.
JL: I think people think they know what the movie is already. They think it’s going to be funny and quirky and making fun of Mormons or something like that, and it’s not really that movie.
JM: And your soundtrack, and your editing does make it feel like that a little bit. Which leads me to ask if you’re finished editing the film now, after seeing the audience reactions at the two screenings.
AJ: Maybe some minor changes.
JL: We’re pretty happy with the film, for the most part. Now that we’ve had some feedback, it’s good.
AB: And seeing it on a gigantic screen always changes things. You can watch it on your biggest 50″ screen at home but it’s just different seeing it, with a crowd, first of all, and also on a huge screen. You’re like, Oh, didn’t notice that before.
JL: Little elements of production value that we’re definitely going to work on now.
JM: Those are things that people probably didn’t notice, but you did.
AB: Yeah, seeing it a thousand times.
JM: I noticed that you don’t have anyone from the Church on camera speaking about this issue. Was that a conscious decision or did no one want to talk to you?JL: We did have someone at one point and we just realized…there were a lot of things we would have liked. I would have liked to show the diversity of the LDS community, for instance, because we were just focusing on this one group that watches edited movies. But it wouldn’t have made the film better. It would have made for a more nuanced discussion, and I would have appreciated that, as someone who’s from that community myself and probably other people of faith would have wanted to see that stuff, but it wasn’t furthering the story aspect of it. We were getting bogged down in that first half, because the balance was, how much do people need to understand about Mormons, and how much do people need to understand about edited movies before we can start telling the story.
AJ: We interviewed a guy who was like a “pseudo” representative of the Church.
JL: He was a media representative of the Church, but he wasn’t a religious figure.
AJ: And he sort of felt awkward speaking for the Church, but he did say some interesting things about the R rating, and how it was a cultural sort of thing.
JL: He was kind of disappointed in the idea that people would like edited movies. He had also been a professor at Brigham Young University and he said we get these students coming in and they don’t want to think for themselves, they want rules. And that was really disheartening for him to see that, too.
JM: I think that’s human nature. People want rules.
AB: Structure.
JM: I’m curious to see how Church leaders react to people who are so desperate to follow the letter of the law but who are kind of ignoring the whole spirit of it. I mean technically they’re not breaking the rules, but you know…
JL: The thing with the Mormon audience, though, is that in their minds they’re following the spirit of the law because they’re trying to take it even further than the commandment they’ve been given. So the thing is to avoid a certain rating and they’re going even further. In the Mormon religion, they ask you to abstain from certain things like alcohol and coffee, and you see that taken even further. So now we don’t drink Coke because that has caffeine in it and maybe that’s why they said don’t drink coffee. So people are always trying to go further, and self-censoring, and that was what was really interesting to me. Our film isn’t a doctrinal film, it’s a cultural film. The Church isn’t necessarily enforcing this but people are taking it upon themselves to self-censor and that was interesting to me.
JM: But isn’t there an audience that says that even those edited films aren’t going far enough?
AJ: Absolutely.
AB: Definitely. The sample of people in the film are the ones who are coming to Cleanflix so it definitely doesn’t represent every Mormon.
JL: There are people on both sides. There are people who say, I don’t care, I’m going to watch R-rated movies, and that’s a big portion too. And then there are some for whom Cleanflix isn’t good enough, who say we shouldn’t be supporting these Hollywood movies at all. Andrew has an interesting story about that, actually.
AJ: Yeah, I interviewed this woman who was a former employee at another edited movies store. One of the comments she made was “Who’s the creep in the back room watching R-rated movie after R-rated movie?” I think a lot of people have a hard time with the idea of Cleanflix, that someone actually has to sit through that filthy material, sort of to take one for the team. So there is a wide range of diversity on the issue. I think in a general sense, Mormons are trying to protect their families from what they consider harmful or evil elements.
JL: And in that respect, it’s not just Mormons. There are a lot of people throughout the world. This market is a big market, and I think people would embrace this if they knew…
JM: You guys must be reading my questions. I was going to suggest that the evangelical Christian market, which must be three or four times the size of the Mormon market, would be very interested.
JL: I think that’s why the Cleanflix guys tried to separate it from Mormonism, because they’re afraid that if it gets tagged as a Mormon thing, they can’t sell as many movies in the South.
JM: And I know that in Canada and parts of the States, there are conservative Muslim audiences, conservative Hindu audiences that would probably go for the same sort of edited movies. Do you know if the edited movie companies have tried to reach those markets at all?
JL: They were trying to reach out to those audiences when they were stopped, and they had 80 locations throughout the United States, they were doing online in Canada. They were spreading, and according to the store owners, everything was on the way up; they had just figured out their business model and they were about to capitalize on it when this all happened.
AJ: We could easily speculate that they would have had success in these other areas.
JL: We choose to focus on Mormonism because that’s where it started and that culture created it.
JM: You indicated too that some of these companies may still be operating online?
JL: That’s one of those things about the digital age. There’s no controlling it anymore, and it’s going to happen. And so if the studios were smart, I think they should figure out a way to handle this themselves because otherwise it’s going to happen without them.
JM: Did you get anyone representing the Directors Guild of America to talk to you?
AJ: We talked to their lawyers and PR people from the DGA who were fairly friendly and interested in helping us, but with all the big names involved and the bureaucracy, it was just hard for us to get at those people.
JM: Do you think they consider it a dead issue now?
JL: They would like it to be a dead issue, because they’ve won and they don’t want it to continue. So it’s good for them if it goes away.
JM: But you do reveal in the film that they do release edited movies for airlines, so what is stopping them from just expanding that?
JL: No one knows. The studios control the copyright and they’re not releasing them.
JM: I just wonder if they feel that the market is too small.
JL: They call it a small market.
JM: But it’s probably a lot bigger than they realize.
JL: An ABC News poll said 45% of the people in the United States would want edited movies if they could have access to them.
AJ: But the Hollywood Reporter said that the studios want to control this, and if people start editing, and releasing edited versions, demand would become too great and it might take away from the theatrical run of some of these films because people will wait for the clean version to come out on DVD.
JM: I guess they figure that the rating system is working well enough.
JL: They like the way it’s working for them.
JM: Have you seen Kirby Dick’s This Film Is Not Yet Rated? A lot of the same issues come up in that.
JL: Yeah, that film was a big help to us as we were getting into this.
JM: I wondered if you’d seen another film here at TIFF, called Dogtooth (review). It’s a Greek film about a guy who keeps his family locked in their house. His children are now in their 20s and they just play games all day, they’re kind of infantile. The director said it was about the extremes to which people will go to protect their families. Of course, it doesn’t end well. And I guess neither does your story. I wonder why the Church feels that keeping bad things from outside is going to make us better people?
AJ: There’s a lot of fear. People are afraid. I’m not going to speak for the Church, but I think culturally there’s a lot of fear that these things are going to get in and affect you, you know to pervert your sexuality as someone says in the film.
JL: If you open that door…
AJ: People don’t trust themselves. You know, if I look at this, I might have some bad thoughts and do something that I might regret.
JM: But you think of it as an outside influence and never something inside of us?
JL: It’s a question of purity, and the idea is that these things stain you, you can’t get rid of that stain. I mean they believe in the idea of repentance, but it’s better if you keep yourself pure of this stuff, and that’s better for you.
JM: I mean I’m curious, because the Christian doctrine is that we’re already born sinful and that we need to be forgiven.
JL: It is part of Mormon doctrine that we’re here to make mistakes and learn from them, but you avoid those mistakes and obedience is the big thing.
JM: So they think you learn more by not making the mistakes?
JL: I don’t know.
AJ: Totally. Yeah, that’s really weird.
AB: It’s not just the media. The Church also teaches you to surround yourself with good people, surround yourself with good things. You know, cleanliness is godliness, there are so many things.
JM: Which is totally common sense.
JL: And it’s not all avoidance. Within the culture it becomes avoidance. Within the doctrine of the Church, it’s “seek after good things.” One of the kids in the films says “I’d rather read a good clean book and watch a good clean movie.” Find the good things, but within the culture it’s easier to follow a rule.
JM: How do you know what’s good until you discover it?
AJ: One of the things that’s interesting to me about this is that I think a lot of these films could help open their eyes to some different issues, help them become aware of cultures in different parts of the world, human experience, help them build empathy with other human beings. And so by shutting themselves out from these films, when you’re living in Utah, or actually, anywhere. But if you’re living a sheltered life, sometimes a film is the only way to expose yourselves to outside things and I think it’s really sheltering to say no.
JM: Another film that this reminds me of is Son of Rambow. Have you seen that?
AB: Yeah. It’s the same.
JL: Yeah.
JM: It’s the same idea. You need some way to connect with the outside world and unfortunately some might choose bad ones, but you can also recommend good ones. What are your plans for screening the film in Utah?
JL: We would love to have our American premiere in Utah.
JM: But it’s going to be R-rated, isn’t it?
JL: We’ve joked about making a Cleanflix version of our movie, and it’s a joke but it would also be a great way to target that audience. Hopefully there are issues discussed in the film that they could benefit from.
JM: A lot of the humour came from showing both the unedited and edited stuff, though. I was just amazed at films like Fargo and The Big Lebowski being edited. I mean, how long was the edited version of The Big Lebowski, 30 minutes? So some of that stuff adds a lot of humour to it.
JL: Yeah, that’s unfortunate, but even with The Big Lebowski and Fargo, there’s a chance we could still get a PG-13 in the United States, and keep those clips in.
JM: I also find this issue in the evangelical Christian community, that violence is not as bad as sex, for some reason I don’t understand, and swearing is also bad, but you can shoot somebody. Somebody’s making these rules, but…
AB: That’s definitely cultural. That’s not doctrine from the Church.
AJ: That goes back to the idea of purity, don’t you think? Like swearing and sexual images.
JL: I mean if you’re not going to do that, you’re definitely not going to kill someone. And that’s another thing in the Church. It’s those little things. They’re guarding themselves against all those little things.
JM: I guess so. It’s a slippery slope. Can I ask you about what your next projects will be?
AJ: We’ve each got our own separate projects which are each exciting on their own terms. I’m working on a documentary about a guy from Peru, during the 80s strapping cocaine to his torso, creating this whole operation smuggling drugs into the United States disguised as a Mormon missionary. And he would take it to Utah and deal it himself and then he’d go back to Peru, go to the jungle and get his cocaine. He did this for two years, made a ton of money, and then eventually gave it up and became a US citizen. It’s his story, this man, and how he became American and his journey and asking some questions along the way.
JL: I’ve got two projects I’m working on. One is about gay Mormons, and that one is a little more Utah-centric, and there’s another project I have that’s more issue-oriented, it’s a little bigger in scope, it’s about people who are robbing Native American graves and then selling the artifacts to big collectors and to museums and other people who don’t know that they’re getting stolen artifacts. There’s a twist, that there are these guys who believe they are being cursed for robbing these graves. Horrible things are happening to these people, suicides, deaths, and they’re happening to all these people who are involved with it. And then we’re also just trying to enlighten people so that they’re not buying the stolen artifacts, we’re trying to highlight the artists and people who are doing it properly and then expose the people who are doing it illegally.
JM: Well I hope that all of those are successful. We also have Hot Docs here in the spring.
JL: Yeah, we would love to be involved with Hot Docs.
JM: Amber, are you working on one of those?
AB: Yeah, I’m actually working on the one with Josh.
JL: It’s called Skeleton Picnic, the Native American one.
AJ: That’s a great title.
JM: Well, they all sound good. I’m looking forward to seeing more from all of you guys. Good luck with the film and enjoy your time at TIFF!
Direct link to the interview at Toronto Screen Shots or follow James McNally on Twitter @toscreenshots.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
NEWS: Best of fest
Joshua Ligairi » 1.14.10 »
After a hugely successful World Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Cleanflix is launching into the New Year. We'll be playing film festivals all over the world from Sweden to San Jose. Stay tuned for more info to see when we will be coming to a town near you. The first three festivals we are announcing are Gothenberg, Big Sky, and Cinequest. These are all well-respected venues. Göteborg International Film Festival is in a corner of the world that I haven't made it to yet, so I am thrilled to be sending the film there. Big Sky has a special emphasis on documentary and Cinequest focuses on ground-breaking films outside the norm. That makes both fests very appealing to us. There are a lot of festivals out there and it takes awhile to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we are really excited about our selections so far. All good things. More to come! Visit the blog often (or just follow us on Twitter) for updates.
After a hugely successful World Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Cleanflix is launching into the New Year. We'll be playing film festivals all over the world from Sweden to San Jose. Stay tuned for more info to see when we will be coming to a town near you. The first three festivals we are announcing are Gothenberg, Big Sky, and Cinequest. These are all well-respected venues. Göteborg International Film Festival is in a corner of the world that I haven't made it to yet, so I am thrilled to be sending the film there. Big Sky has a special emphasis on documentary and Cinequest focuses on ground-breaking films outside the norm. That makes both fests very appealing to us. There are a lot of festivals out there and it takes awhile to separate the wheat from the chaff, but we are really excited about our selections so far. All good things. More to come! Visit the blog often (or just follow us on Twitter) for updates.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
PRESS: In This Week's Cleanflix Interview
An interview with Cleanflix co-directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi by In This Week's Spencer Sutherland. Direct link to the original article at In This Week's website here.
Spencer Sutherland » 09.22.09 »
CLEANFLIX AT FILM FESTIVAL IN TORONTO
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 right now.
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 the interview at In This Week or check out Spencer Sutherland's blog The Sutherland Manifesto.
Spencer Sutherland » 09.22.09 »
CLEANFLIX AT FILM FESTIVAL IN TORONTO
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 right now.
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 the interview at In This Week or check out Spencer Sutherland's blog The Sutherland Manifesto.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
BLOG: Huck, flack, spin, & buzz (kill)
Joshua Ligairi » 09.20.09 »
Sometimes you've got to be careful what you wish for. In the film industry the wishful thing is "buzz." My mind is recalled to the early Christian notion that those things which you can see will pass away while those things that are invisible are eternal. In the case of indie film, once you're out there, there is no going back. For that reason we were discouraged from having our film reviewed by major news outlets such as The New York Times because, although a positive review from the Times may help, a negative review will kill the film dead in its tracks. So, the idea is to put a review like that off as long as possible, while building a strong grassroots appreciation for the film. Due to forces outside our control, like premiering at a major film festival, we are becoming evermore visible. What do we do now? There isn't really anyone to tell you this stuff. We've decided to run with it.
Just as predicted, there has been the good and the bad. The reviews are rolling in and, for the most part, have been positive. Still, those few bad reviews really stick in my craw. I don't mind so much when they are right about the problems the film has. There are plenty of valid criticisms. I have a few myself. For instance, there are certain things that aren't included in the film that I wish were but, for one reason or another, were impossible to include. I know that we couldn't have included those things, so I let it go, but the critics have no way of knowing our process, so I don't fault them when they can't let it go. I'm also happy to agree to disagree with a critic on certain points. And then, of course, some things are just a matter of personal preference or taste. All of that is fine. But there are two types of reviews that I cannot abide.
The first thing that drives me crazy is when a critic is reviewing your film, based not on what they are watching, but on the film they were expecting to see. This happens all the time, of course, but it was a particular problem with Cleanflix because the topic had been oft-reported on by the entertainment news community. They all thought that they knew what the film was going to be when they walked into the theater. The thoughtful ones were happy to be surprised. Many found that their expectations had been exceeded. The rest were upset that their false expectations hadn't been met. And it is not as though we had tricked them with marketing--we didn't even have a trailer! They just weren't willing to review the film on its own terms. Long gone are the days of Pauline Kael. Annonying. That said, this complaint is nothing compared to my major complaint.
The second thing that drives me crazy, and I mean to the point of distraction, is when a critic chides us for something that they missed. You know, like, they say that our film is missing something that it is clearly not. Did they go to the bathroom during that scene? Were they digging around in their popcorn? Maybe they were busy tweeting that our film was a let-down. I don't know. What I do know is that whatever it was that distracted them, caused them to miss some vital piece of information that I was later blamed for.
The problem is that this approach is key to film criticism these days. Critics see a film once and write their review. That's just the way it worst. For that reason, it is difficult to get after them too much. I would be hard pressed to watch a film once--live--and then be expected to have total recall a day or two or seven later when writing a review. Of course they are going to miss things. Of course they are going to get a few things wrong. It is expected and totally reasonable. The problem is that many of these reviewers aren't in touch with themselves enough to know when they are fuzzy on the facts. In fact, often the opposite is true. They approach your film cock-sure, dragging you over the coals for things they claim the film is lacking, but in actuality is not. This isn't as much of an issue with bigger films, because enough people have seen and reviewed such a movie to expose the reviewer as the one who is out of the loop. But with a film like ours, an indie film being seen for the first time at a festival, the critic is among the first to review the movie and, if they mess up badly enough, they may ensure that nobody else gets the chance to review the movie in the future.
Photo from TIFF Cleanflix premiere in Life.
I am loathe to report that the majority of our negative reviews had at least one, if not several, instances of the reviewer claiming that we had missed opportunities that we hadn't. I cannot began to communicate to you my level of frustration that is pent up when reading such reviews. How is one supposed to react in a situation like that? In normal life (especially in this online culture we're living in) I would write back and verbally rip this guy to shreds. I can't do that as a filmmaker. I literally had to talk myself out of writing a scathing letter to a bumbling critic for an entire hour on one such occasion. In the end I was glad I didn't because to do so would only have been worse for my film.
Look at the flack Bruce Willis took for defending Live Free or Die Hard to talk-backers on the AICN boards. People were surprised he would stoop to that level. Well, what would you do if a bunch of people you didn't know were trashing something you cared enough about to dedicate more than a year of your life making and promoting? I'm not surprised in the least that Bruce wanted to defend his flick. The reality is, you just can't do it. Learning to deal with criticism is just part of being a film professional. Filmmaker Richard Dutcher, who actually appears in Cleanflix, gave me some good advice. He said to read the bad reviews once. Just once. Really listen to the critic and see if there is anything to learn. Then, throw it away. Read the good reviews a hundred times. That helped and has stuck with me.
And, of course, there is a positive side to this whole thing. The best part is that, based on the acclaim of Cleanflix, I'm going to get to keep making movies. Also, it is just fun knowing that people you like and respect are talking about you and your film. Just being online the last couple days and seeing Peter Sciretta tweeting about our film with guys like Jason Reitman and Frank Marshall has given me goosebumps. Malcolm Ingram of Small Town Gay Bar and SModcast fame was at our final screening. Danny Boyle almost walked into the screening, but it turns out he was at the wrong theater. Bummer. But there were many appreciative industry elite and there was a great press turnout as well. Our publicist even said that he spotted Elvis Mitchell at one of our screenings. No word from him yet, but Elvis, if you're out there, I'm a big fan of The Treatment. Call me.
One little highlight that you probably wouldn't expect to be one is that I sat and chatted with Peter from /Film and Alex from First Showing after a screening. I'm something of a film geek and I actually get a bigger kick out of knowing that /Film or Ain't It Cool has reviewed my film than even Variety or the Hollywood Reporter (even though we had a great interview with THR). And not only that, but they liked it. What a relief. I have promised to send a copy of Cleanflix to the Film Junk and Filmspotting podcasts, and I'm grateful that I have the excuse of waiting until our next film festival before I send it because I'm kinda nervous to hear what Adam and Matty, or worse, Greg, Sean, and Jay think of the movie I spent two years making. I don't know what I'll do when Roger Ebert finally reviews it.
I know that this probably sounds weird, a filmmaker excited to meet a blogger, and I know that it is usually the other way around, but when you are just starting out, you are a dyed in the wool geek such as myself, and you have been reading these guys forever...well, there is no denying that the whole experience is just thrilling. So, in the end, you take the good and the bad and hope that the buzz you've worked so hard to build doesn't turn out to be a buzz-kill.
Sometimes you've got to be careful what you wish for. In the film industry the wishful thing is "buzz." My mind is recalled to the early Christian notion that those things which you can see will pass away while those things that are invisible are eternal. In the case of indie film, once you're out there, there is no going back. For that reason we were discouraged from having our film reviewed by major news outlets such as The New York Times because, although a positive review from the Times may help, a negative review will kill the film dead in its tracks. So, the idea is to put a review like that off as long as possible, while building a strong grassroots appreciation for the film. Due to forces outside our control, like premiering at a major film festival, we are becoming evermore visible. What do we do now? There isn't really anyone to tell you this stuff. We've decided to run with it.
Just as predicted, there has been the good and the bad. The reviews are rolling in and, for the most part, have been positive. Still, those few bad reviews really stick in my craw. I don't mind so much when they are right about the problems the film has. There are plenty of valid criticisms. I have a few myself. For instance, there are certain things that aren't included in the film that I wish were but, for one reason or another, were impossible to include. I know that we couldn't have included those things, so I let it go, but the critics have no way of knowing our process, so I don't fault them when they can't let it go. I'm also happy to agree to disagree with a critic on certain points. And then, of course, some things are just a matter of personal preference or taste. All of that is fine. But there are two types of reviews that I cannot abide.
The first thing that drives me crazy is when a critic is reviewing your film, based not on what they are watching, but on the film they were expecting to see. This happens all the time, of course, but it was a particular problem with Cleanflix because the topic had been oft-reported on by the entertainment news community. They all thought that they knew what the film was going to be when they walked into the theater. The thoughtful ones were happy to be surprised. Many found that their expectations had been exceeded. The rest were upset that their false expectations hadn't been met. And it is not as though we had tricked them with marketing--we didn't even have a trailer! They just weren't willing to review the film on its own terms. Long gone are the days of Pauline Kael. Annonying. That said, this complaint is nothing compared to my major complaint.
The second thing that drives me crazy, and I mean to the point of distraction, is when a critic chides us for something that they missed. You know, like, they say that our film is missing something that it is clearly not. Did they go to the bathroom during that scene? Were they digging around in their popcorn? Maybe they were busy tweeting that our film was a let-down. I don't know. What I do know is that whatever it was that distracted them, caused them to miss some vital piece of information that I was later blamed for.The problem is that this approach is key to film criticism these days. Critics see a film once and write their review. That's just the way it worst. For that reason, it is difficult to get after them too much. I would be hard pressed to watch a film once--live--and then be expected to have total recall a day or two or seven later when writing a review. Of course they are going to miss things. Of course they are going to get a few things wrong. It is expected and totally reasonable. The problem is that many of these reviewers aren't in touch with themselves enough to know when they are fuzzy on the facts. In fact, often the opposite is true. They approach your film cock-sure, dragging you over the coals for things they claim the film is lacking, but in actuality is not. This isn't as much of an issue with bigger films, because enough people have seen and reviewed such a movie to expose the reviewer as the one who is out of the loop. But with a film like ours, an indie film being seen for the first time at a festival, the critic is among the first to review the movie and, if they mess up badly enough, they may ensure that nobody else gets the chance to review the movie in the future.
Photo from TIFF Cleanflix premiere in Life.I am loathe to report that the majority of our negative reviews had at least one, if not several, instances of the reviewer claiming that we had missed opportunities that we hadn't. I cannot began to communicate to you my level of frustration that is pent up when reading such reviews. How is one supposed to react in a situation like that? In normal life (especially in this online culture we're living in) I would write back and verbally rip this guy to shreds. I can't do that as a filmmaker. I literally had to talk myself out of writing a scathing letter to a bumbling critic for an entire hour on one such occasion. In the end I was glad I didn't because to do so would only have been worse for my film.
Look at the flack Bruce Willis took for defending Live Free or Die Hard to talk-backers on the AICN boards. People were surprised he would stoop to that level. Well, what would you do if a bunch of people you didn't know were trashing something you cared enough about to dedicate more than a year of your life making and promoting? I'm not surprised in the least that Bruce wanted to defend his flick. The reality is, you just can't do it. Learning to deal with criticism is just part of being a film professional. Filmmaker Richard Dutcher, who actually appears in Cleanflix, gave me some good advice. He said to read the bad reviews once. Just once. Really listen to the critic and see if there is anything to learn. Then, throw it away. Read the good reviews a hundred times. That helped and has stuck with me.
And, of course, there is a positive side to this whole thing. The best part is that, based on the acclaim of Cleanflix, I'm going to get to keep making movies. Also, it is just fun knowing that people you like and respect are talking about you and your film. Just being online the last couple days and seeing Peter Sciretta tweeting about our film with guys like Jason Reitman and Frank Marshall has given me goosebumps. Malcolm Ingram of Small Town Gay Bar and SModcast fame was at our final screening. Danny Boyle almost walked into the screening, but it turns out he was at the wrong theater. Bummer. But there were many appreciative industry elite and there was a great press turnout as well. Our publicist even said that he spotted Elvis Mitchell at one of our screenings. No word from him yet, but Elvis, if you're out there, I'm a big fan of The Treatment. Call me.
One little highlight that you probably wouldn't expect to be one is that I sat and chatted with Peter from /Film and Alex from First Showing after a screening. I'm something of a film geek and I actually get a bigger kick out of knowing that /Film or Ain't It Cool has reviewed my film than even Variety or the Hollywood Reporter (even though we had a great interview with THR). And not only that, but they liked it. What a relief. I have promised to send a copy of Cleanflix to the Film Junk and Filmspotting podcasts, and I'm grateful that I have the excuse of waiting until our next film festival before I send it because I'm kinda nervous to hear what Adam and Matty, or worse, Greg, Sean, and Jay think of the movie I spent two years making. I don't know what I'll do when Roger Ebert finally reviews it.I know that this probably sounds weird, a filmmaker excited to meet a blogger, and I know that it is usually the other way around, but when you are just starting out, you are a dyed in the wool geek such as myself, and you have been reading these guys forever...well, there is no denying that the whole experience is just thrilling. So, in the end, you take the good and the bad and hope that the buzz you've worked so hard to build doesn't turn out to be a buzz-kill.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
PRESS: /Film review of Cleanflix
A review of our film, Cleanflix, by /Film editor Peter Sciretta. Direct link to the original post at /Film's site here.
Peter Sciretta » 09.19.09 »
When I first found out that a documentary about CleanFlicks was playing at the Toronto International Film Festival, I immediately added it to my must-see list. I’ve always been interested and outraged at the concept of Cleanflicks.
For those of you who don’t know, Mormons are advised not to watch R-rated movies because the language, sex and violence will contaminate and pervert your brain. The modern day prophets say the best solution is to avoid these things at all costs. A video rental store was opened in Utah to cater to to the sanitized beliefs. CleanFlicks would take Hollywood movies and professionally edit them in final cut, removing most of the “bad parts.”
The film features a number of comparisons between original theatrical cut and CleanFlicks re-edits, most of which are both hilarious and appalling. Swear words aren’t bleeped, scenes are suddenly cut, the CleanFlicks edits are actually remarkably well done, at least technically. But deleted shots, sequences, or conversations, often results in a completely different intention in the dialogue or moments of a film.
The sanitized versions could be rented at the CleanFlicks store, or even be made available for purchase to the paying public (they did this using a 1:1 ratio, including an original purchased copy with each CleanFlicks copy). At one point the company was operating 10 corporate stores, in addition to almost 70 franchised dealerships. The documentary Cleanflix tells the story of the rise and fall of CleanFlicks and other edited movie dealerships in Utah, with a primary focus on Daniel Thompson, a CleanFlicks franchisee who became the de facto leader of Utah’s the edited movie revival. And Daniel’s story has just as many twists and turns as the headline story.
If I have any complaint about the documentary, it is that at one point it becomes too focused on Thompson’s story, and misses opportunities to talk about the ethics, present and future of the sanitized movie business. I would have loved to learn more about how and why Hollywood creates TV and airplane edits of films, but refuses to provide these edits to the Mormon audience. I would’ve liked to see a follow-up on the DVD players being created today that allow parents (or whomever) to selectively edit adult content out of a movie. This story doesn’t end with Daniel, and the movie shouldn’t end with him either.
But that said, Cleanflix is easily the most interesting topical documentary about movies since This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Cleanflix is a movie which continues hours after the credits, in the conversations and debates you will have with your friends and family. It creates a discussion about art, censorship, rights, religion, and technology. With popularized art, what are the rights of the creator (director), copyright owner/distributor (studio), and the art buyer (moviewatcher). And as technology grows, will Hollywood be able to contain the demand for sanitized movie edits?
Interestingly enough, the directors have said they would like to give the film a big premiere in Mormon country… Sundance, make this happen!
/Film Rating: 7.5 out of 10
Direct link to the review on /Film.
Peter Sciretta » 09.19.09 »When I first found out that a documentary about CleanFlicks was playing at the Toronto International Film Festival, I immediately added it to my must-see list. I’ve always been interested and outraged at the concept of Cleanflicks.
For those of you who don’t know, Mormons are advised not to watch R-rated movies because the language, sex and violence will contaminate and pervert your brain. The modern day prophets say the best solution is to avoid these things at all costs. A video rental store was opened in Utah to cater to to the sanitized beliefs. CleanFlicks would take Hollywood movies and professionally edit them in final cut, removing most of the “bad parts.”
The film features a number of comparisons between original theatrical cut and CleanFlicks re-edits, most of which are both hilarious and appalling. Swear words aren’t bleeped, scenes are suddenly cut, the CleanFlicks edits are actually remarkably well done, at least technically. But deleted shots, sequences, or conversations, often results in a completely different intention in the dialogue or moments of a film.
"Cleanflix is easily the most interesting topical documentary about movies since This Film Is Not Yet Rated."
If I have any complaint about the documentary, it is that at one point it becomes too focused on Thompson’s story, and misses opportunities to talk about the ethics, present and future of the sanitized movie business. I would have loved to learn more about how and why Hollywood creates TV and airplane edits of films, but refuses to provide these edits to the Mormon audience. I would’ve liked to see a follow-up on the DVD players being created today that allow parents (or whomever) to selectively edit adult content out of a movie. This story doesn’t end with Daniel, and the movie shouldn’t end with him either.
But that said, Cleanflix is easily the most interesting topical documentary about movies since This Film Is Not Yet Rated. Cleanflix is a movie which continues hours after the credits, in the conversations and debates you will have with your friends and family. It creates a discussion about art, censorship, rights, religion, and technology. With popularized art, what are the rights of the creator (director), copyright owner/distributor (studio), and the art buyer (moviewatcher). And as technology grows, will Hollywood be able to contain the demand for sanitized movie edits?
Interestingly enough, the directors have said they would like to give the film a big premiere in Mormon country… Sundance, make this happen!
/Film Rating: 7.5 out of 10
Direct link to the review on /Film.
Friday, September 18, 2009
PRESS: CBC review of Cleanflix
A review of Cleanflix by Greig Dymond, Senior Producer of CBC Arts. Direct link to the original post at the CBC's website here.
Greig Dymond » 09.18.09 »
Last night I caught a compelling doc that deserves to find an audience beyond the festival circuit. Cleanflix is about a highly profitable business that sprung up in Utah about 10 years ago: several video-DVD rental outlets started to provide cleaned-up versions of Hollywood favourites for Mormons who liked movies but didn’t want their families exposed to any sex, violence or swearing. Case in point: a lot of these folks wanted to watch Titanic, but without that scene where Leo paints a portrait of the topless Ms. Winslet. Thanks to modern technology, it wasn’t that difficult to add in some clothing for her doomed character.
Things were going along swimmingly: the owners of stores such as Clean Flicks and Flick’s Club were making oodles of cash and the customers were satisfied. But then some A-list Hollywood directors – including Michael Mann and Steven Soderbergh – found out about the rather radical changes being made to their films without their permission or copyright clearance. Needless to say, all heck broke loose.
Directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi grew up in the Mormon community and they’ve made a very smart and critical – but never dismissive – film about two vastly different worlds colliding over artistic censorship.
Direct link to the review at CBC Arts.
Greig Dymond » 09.18.09 »Last night I caught a compelling doc that deserves to find an audience beyond the festival circuit. Cleanflix is about a highly profitable business that sprung up in Utah about 10 years ago: several video-DVD rental outlets started to provide cleaned-up versions of Hollywood favourites for Mormons who liked movies but didn’t want their families exposed to any sex, violence or swearing. Case in point: a lot of these folks wanted to watch Titanic, but without that scene where Leo paints a portrait of the topless Ms. Winslet. Thanks to modern technology, it wasn’t that difficult to add in some clothing for her doomed character.
"A very smart and critical – but never dismissive – film about two vastly different worlds colliding."
Directors Andrew James and Joshua Ligairi grew up in the Mormon community and they’ve made a very smart and critical – but never dismissive – film about two vastly different worlds colliding over artistic censorship.
Direct link to the review at CBC Arts.
Monday, September 14, 2009
PRESS: Ain't It Cool review of Cleanflix
A review of our film, Cleanflix, by Ain't It Cool's Cartuna. Direct link to the original post at Ain't It Cool's site here.
Cartuna » 09.14.09 »
The short version:
Very compelling, if somewhat slanted documentary. I really enjoyed it, and would watch it again, or maybe even buy the DVD at some point.
The long version:
In Utah, where Mormons have been explicitly told that they are not to watch R-rated films by their prophet, enterprising entrepreneurs start businesses where they edit people’s videos of blockbuster Hollywood films to remove any ‘objectionable’ content.
This documentary follows a few of these businesses, as they bump into copyright law and the wrath of the artists whose work they are nipping and tucking.
As you might expect, the ‘choir’ was definitely in the house for this particular bit of preaching. This is a documentary that has chosen sides - from its opening frames, it paints the Church of Latter-day Saints as horrifying and maniacal (by simply showing one of their prophets, preaching, on a distorted grainy videotape) and I wouldn’t want to be the one to argue against this stance.
The documentarians were either very wise or very lucky to concentrate their narrative around Daniel Thompson, owner and operator of a small edited-video rental and retail business as their lead subject in the film, as the guy simply loves the attention of the media, and shows an incredible degree of hubris, which ends up coming back to bite him on the ass, multiple times. He rivals King of Kong’s Billy Mitchell as one of those ideal documentary subjects who you can’t quite believe is a real guy.
We follow him through his emergence as a national spokesman for the concept of edited videos up to and beyond a shocking sex-scandal.
I doubt edited-video supporters will really enjoy the film, but the rest of us should have a pretty darn good time.
Direct link to the review on Ain't It Cool.
Cartuna » 09.14.09 »The short version:
Very compelling, if somewhat slanted documentary. I really enjoyed it, and would watch it again, or maybe even buy the DVD at some point.
The long version:
In Utah, where Mormons have been explicitly told that they are not to watch R-rated films by their prophet, enterprising entrepreneurs start businesses where they edit people’s videos of blockbuster Hollywood films to remove any ‘objectionable’ content.
This documentary follows a few of these businesses, as they bump into copyright law and the wrath of the artists whose work they are nipping and tucking.
As you might expect, the ‘choir’ was definitely in the house for this particular bit of preaching. This is a documentary that has chosen sides - from its opening frames, it paints the Church of Latter-day Saints as horrifying and maniacal (by simply showing one of their prophets, preaching, on a distorted grainy videotape) and I wouldn’t want to be the one to argue against this stance.
"Daniel Thompson rivals King of Kong’s Billy Mitchell as one of those ideal documentary subjects who you can’t quite believe is a real guy."
We follow him through his emergence as a national spokesman for the concept of edited videos up to and beyond a shocking sex-scandal.
I doubt edited-video supporters will really enjoy the film, but the rest of us should have a pretty darn good time.
Direct link to the review on Ain't It Cool.
Friday, September 11, 2009
PRESS: Cleanflix article in Salt Lake Tribune
An article about the Toronto International Film Festival World Premiere of Cleanflix by Sean Means of the Salt Lake Tribune. Direct link to the original article at the Tribune's website here.
Sean P. Means » 09.11.09 »
UTAH MORALITY TALE PREMIERES AT TORONTO
Considering the three years it took to get from Utah County to North America's largest film festival, it's understandable that filmmaker Andrew James was getting teary-eyed.
"It's really emotional -- it's been a great journey," James said, standing next to his co-director, Joshua Ligairi, in front of the audience Friday at the Toronto International Film Festival before the world premiere of their documentary "Cleanflix."
The 90-minute documentary examines the cottage industry that sprung up in Utah in 2000, when a company named CleanFlicks started offering DVD and VHS rentals of Hollywood movies -- edited to remove violence, profanity and sexual content -- to a predominantly Mormon clientele.
Thom Powers, the festival's documentary programmer, introduced the movie with a joking nod to the Sundance Film Festival. "Every year the film industry goes to Utah for 10 days," Powers said, "and the rest of the year we don't think much about the place."
As the movie rolled, the movie-savvy Toronto festival audience learned about the once-thriving business of CleanFlicks and its imitators, and the conditions that prompted that success -- namely, the prohibition by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' leaders against Mormons viewing R-rated movies.
The movie also details how CleanFlicks went out of business when a federal judge in 2006 ruled the edited movies violated copyright laws, while some offshoot companies tried to keep going in spite of the ruling.
After the screening, James and Ligairi fielded questions about the morality of the edited-movie business and how owners of that business justified breaking the law. One owner, Robert Perry, did not. He shut down his business after the court ruling. "You can't break the law and consider yourself a moral person," Perry told the festival audience.
James said that if someone tried to edit his movie, "I'd absolutely be upset about it. They're censoring copyrighted pieces of art they don't own, and they're making a buck off of it."
Both Perry and Utah Valley University communications professor Philip Sherman Gordon, who were interviewed in the film and attended its Toronto premiere, were pleased with the results.
Gordon argued the CleanFlicks side has won, in a way, because recent federal law allows software like ClearPlay, which edits objectionable material from DVDs. Perry said he's happy his side of the story is being told. "I had a good feeling when I first met them that they would do a good job."
Powers, the festival's documentary programmer, said Toronto, with its concentration of movie press and industry, is "a huge launching pad" for Cleanflix.
Having the premiere on neutral territory may be a plus as well, Perry said. "If this was at Sundance," he said, "we'd probably have picketing and riots."
Direct link to the article at the Salt Lake Tribune.
Sean P. Means » 09.11.09 »UTAH MORALITY TALE PREMIERES AT TORONTO
Considering the three years it took to get from Utah County to North America's largest film festival, it's understandable that filmmaker Andrew James was getting teary-eyed.
"It's really emotional -- it's been a great journey," James said, standing next to his co-director, Joshua Ligairi, in front of the audience Friday at the Toronto International Film Festival before the world premiere of their documentary "Cleanflix."
The 90-minute documentary examines the cottage industry that sprung up in Utah in 2000, when a company named CleanFlicks started offering DVD and VHS rentals of Hollywood movies -- edited to remove violence, profanity and sexual content -- to a predominantly Mormon clientele.
Thom Powers, the festival's documentary programmer, introduced the movie with a joking nod to the Sundance Film Festival. "Every year the film industry goes to Utah for 10 days," Powers said, "and the rest of the year we don't think much about the place."
As the movie rolled, the movie-savvy Toronto festival audience learned about the once-thriving business of CleanFlicks and its imitators, and the conditions that prompted that success -- namely, the prohibition by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' leaders against Mormons viewing R-rated movies.The movie also details how CleanFlicks went out of business when a federal judge in 2006 ruled the edited movies violated copyright laws, while some offshoot companies tried to keep going in spite of the ruling.
After the screening, James and Ligairi fielded questions about the morality of the edited-movie business and how owners of that business justified breaking the law. One owner, Robert Perry, did not. He shut down his business after the court ruling. "You can't break the law and consider yourself a moral person," Perry told the festival audience.
James said that if someone tried to edit his movie, "I'd absolutely be upset about it. They're censoring copyrighted pieces of art they don't own, and they're making a buck off of it."
Both Perry and Utah Valley University communications professor Philip Sherman Gordon, who were interviewed in the film and attended its Toronto premiere, were pleased with the results.
Gordon argued the CleanFlicks side has won, in a way, because recent federal law allows software like ClearPlay, which edits objectionable material from DVDs. Perry said he's happy his side of the story is being told. "I had a good feeling when I first met them that they would do a good job."
Powers, the festival's documentary programmer, said Toronto, with its concentration of movie press and industry, is "a huge launching pad" for Cleanflix.
Having the premiere on neutral territory may be a plus as well, Perry said. "If this was at Sundance," he said, "we'd probably have picketing and riots."
Direct link to the article at the Salt Lake Tribune.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
BLOG: Early press for Cleanflix
Joshua Ligairi » 9.06.09 »
So, Cleanflix, premieres on Friday, but it's been getting early buzz since we posted the announcement that we would be playing the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival.
After an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, we were informed that Sean Means, film critic at the Tribune, would be making a special trip to Toronto just to see Cleanflix.
The first filmmaker interview was with Producer Kynan Griffin (Pride & Prejudice, Moving McAllister) at The Examiner. Subsequent filmmaker interviews followed in several print publications. You can listen to our first audio interview on A Damn Movie Podcast (warning, explicit language).
There have been some great blog posts anticipating the film from all over the world from Canada to Mexico. We've also been mentioned as top picks by guest bloggers on the TIFF09 documentary guide including David D'Arcy, programmer of the Haifa International Film Festival in Israel and both David Courier and Basil Tsiokos of the Sundance Film Festival programming staff.
We've also been featured nicely in little blurbs within other articles about TIFF09:
The Hollywood Reporter refers to Cleanflix among "high profile" and "heat seeking" films.
IndieWire features Thom Powers talking us up.
Atlantic City Weekly puts us up there with the big boys.
Variety didn't have much to say, but they said it in Variety!
The Hollywood Reporter announcement includes us in the title.
The Torontoist features only our photo and George A. Romero's photo.
Buzz is weird. Of course, we are excited about all the attention the film has been getting (we haven't even hired a publicist yet), but almost nobody has actually seen the film. It seems that we're just getting great word of mouth from the few people who have seen it. Also, supposedly there is good buzz and bad buzz. You want some buzz, but not too much that you become over-saturated. It is all a bunch of stupid marketing stuff that is totally antithetical to the creative process. I guess it is important if you actually want to make art for a living, though.
All that aside, I'm looking forward to the festival. It is a real honor to be playing at a festival as prestigious as Toronto and we hope this is just the beginning of many wonderful film festival experiences. We're super excited to be screening alongside films from a myriad of talented filmmakers that I have looked up to for years. Not to name drop, but other filmmakers in attendance will be The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh, Geroge Clooney, Chris Smith, Todd Solondz, Michael Moore, and Werner Herzog, and George A. Romero--to name just a few. The whole thing would be pretty over-whelming if the reality of it would actually sink in.
If you are interested in tracking the progress of the film, you can become a fan of Cleanflix at Facebook or join us on our struggling MySpace page. Cleanflix poster design by Natty Coleman of Worker's State.
So, Cleanflix, premieres on Friday, but it's been getting early buzz since we posted the announcement that we would be playing the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival.After an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, we were informed that Sean Means, film critic at the Tribune, would be making a special trip to Toronto just to see Cleanflix.
The first filmmaker interview was with Producer Kynan Griffin (Pride & Prejudice, Moving McAllister) at The Examiner. Subsequent filmmaker interviews followed in several print publications. You can listen to our first audio interview on A Damn Movie Podcast (warning, explicit language).
There have been some great blog posts anticipating the film from all over the world from Canada to Mexico. We've also been mentioned as top picks by guest bloggers on the TIFF09 documentary guide including David D'Arcy, programmer of the Haifa International Film Festival in Israel and both David Courier and Basil Tsiokos of the Sundance Film Festival programming staff.
We've also been featured nicely in little blurbs within other articles about TIFF09:
The Hollywood Reporter refers to Cleanflix among "high profile" and "heat seeking" films.
IndieWire features Thom Powers talking us up.
Atlantic City Weekly puts us up there with the big boys.
Variety didn't have much to say, but they said it in Variety!
The Hollywood Reporter announcement includes us in the title.
The Torontoist features only our photo and George A. Romero's photo.
Buzz is weird. Of course, we are excited about all the attention the film has been getting (we haven't even hired a publicist yet), but almost nobody has actually seen the film. It seems that we're just getting great word of mouth from the few people who have seen it. Also, supposedly there is good buzz and bad buzz. You want some buzz, but not too much that you become over-saturated. It is all a bunch of stupid marketing stuff that is totally antithetical to the creative process. I guess it is important if you actually want to make art for a living, though.
All that aside, I'm looking forward to the festival. It is a real honor to be playing at a festival as prestigious as Toronto and we hope this is just the beginning of many wonderful film festival experiences. We're super excited to be screening alongside films from a myriad of talented filmmakers that I have looked up to for years. Not to name drop, but other filmmakers in attendance will be The Coen Brothers, Steven Soderbergh, Geroge Clooney, Chris Smith, Todd Solondz, Michael Moore, and Werner Herzog, and George A. Romero--to name just a few. The whole thing would be pretty over-whelming if the reality of it would actually sink in.
If you are interested in tracking the progress of the film, you can become a fan of Cleanflix at Facebook or join us on our struggling MySpace page. Cleanflix poster design by Natty Coleman of Worker's State.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
NEWS: Adam(n) podcast appearance
Joshua Ligairi » 09.03.09 »
Two guys named Adam from Salt Lake City run a cool little film podcast where the movies of yesterday and today are jovially discussed in a low-key atmosphere that feels more like hanging out with old friends than a cineaste dissection of cinema. That's not to say that these guys can't drop science. The Adams are true film fans and can speak knowledgeably about anything from the work of Alfred Hitchcock to that of David Cronenberg. I've often enjoyed their rants on everything from Apocolypse Now and Blade Runner to Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Howard the Duck. These guys don't discriminate.
I first heard about A Damn Movie Podcast on Filmspotting (you may remember from a previous post that I am sickeningly addicted to several movie podcasts, Filmspotting ranking high on the junkie list) when one of those Adams, Adam Palcher, dropped in to talk about his favorite films of 2009 so far. Hearing a local on one of my favorite national podcasts, I did a spit take all over my Mac and then jumped on iTunes to look these guys up and see what I was missing out on. And I'm glad I did because it soon paid off in more than just cheap entertainment.
Last night I had the honor of being a guest on the show, recorded at Adam Sherlock's amazing house at a super-secret location in Salt Lake City. How amazingly super-secret? The guy has his own road. But I digress. Sherlock and Palcher invited myself and Andrew James, co-director of the Cleanflix documentary, on the show to discuss our film and the ideas behind it. What ensued was an interesting (to us) if incomprehensible (to everyone but us) conversation about Mormon culture, sanitized movies, the making-of our film, and the upcoming premiere of Cleanflix at the Toronto International Film Festival. I hope that what was said could be considered insightful commentary, but either way I had a great time and it was cool to see that the Adams are actually even more likebale in person than they are on the air.
You can download the podcast on iTunes for free. Just search "A Damn Movie Podcast." Our interview is halfway into Episode 71, the censorship episode, which also features a review of Private Parts and a top five list where the guys discuss movies that they would like to edit just to improve the quality of the film (the Phantom Edit anyone?). It is all worth a listen, but if you have a short attention span, our interview comes in at right about the 30 minute mark.
Another great thing is that the podcast happens to feature music from two of my favorite local bands, arguably two of the best indie/alt country bands in the world right now, Cub Country and Band of Annuals. You can find music from both of these bands online, and I would recommend that you do. I especially like the Cub Country album "High Uinta High" which is largely about singer/songwriter Jeremy Chatelain's (Jets to Brazil, Iceburn) love for the great state of Utah.
I should also probably mention, for those with sensitive ears, that these damn podcasters swear like sailors and the entire interview is riddled with colorful language. If you don't have access to iTunes, you can download the episode directly from their blog. The photos that I've posted of the Adams are by Renee Lee at BellaOra Studios and Francisco Kjolseth at In This Week.
Two guys named Adam from Salt Lake City run a cool little film podcast where the movies of yesterday and today are jovially discussed in a low-key atmosphere that feels more like hanging out with old friends than a cineaste dissection of cinema. That's not to say that these guys can't drop science. The Adams are true film fans and can speak knowledgeably about anything from the work of Alfred Hitchcock to that of David Cronenberg. I've often enjoyed their rants on everything from Apocolypse Now and Blade Runner to Pee Wee's Big Adventure and Howard the Duck. These guys don't discriminate.I first heard about A Damn Movie Podcast on Filmspotting (you may remember from a previous post that I am sickeningly addicted to several movie podcasts, Filmspotting ranking high on the junkie list) when one of those Adams, Adam Palcher, dropped in to talk about his favorite films of 2009 so far. Hearing a local on one of my favorite national podcasts, I did a spit take all over my Mac and then jumped on iTunes to look these guys up and see what I was missing out on. And I'm glad I did because it soon paid off in more than just cheap entertainment.
Last night I had the honor of being a guest on the show, recorded at Adam Sherlock's amazing house at a super-secret location in Salt Lake City. How amazingly super-secret? The guy has his own road. But I digress. Sherlock and Palcher invited myself and Andrew James, co-director of the Cleanflix documentary, on the show to discuss our film and the ideas behind it. What ensued was an interesting (to us) if incomprehensible (to everyone but us) conversation about Mormon culture, sanitized movies, the making-of our film, and the upcoming premiere of Cleanflix at the Toronto International Film Festival. I hope that what was said could be considered insightful commentary, but either way I had a great time and it was cool to see that the Adams are actually even more likebale in person than they are on the air.You can download the podcast on iTunes for free. Just search "A Damn Movie Podcast." Our interview is halfway into Episode 71, the censorship episode, which also features a review of Private Parts and a top five list where the guys discuss movies that they would like to edit just to improve the quality of the film (the Phantom Edit anyone?). It is all worth a listen, but if you have a short attention span, our interview comes in at right about the 30 minute mark.
Another great thing is that the podcast happens to feature music from two of my favorite local bands, arguably two of the best indie/alt country bands in the world right now, Cub Country and Band of Annuals. You can find music from both of these bands online, and I would recommend that you do. I especially like the Cub Country album "High Uinta High" which is largely about singer/songwriter Jeremy Chatelain's (Jets to Brazil, Iceburn) love for the great state of Utah.I should also probably mention, for those with sensitive ears, that these damn podcasters swear like sailors and the entire interview is riddled with colorful language. If you don't have access to iTunes, you can download the episode directly from their blog. The photos that I've posted of the Adams are by Renee Lee at BellaOra Studios and Francisco Kjolseth at In This Week.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
BLOG: Blame Canada!
Joshua Ligairi » 07.21.09 »
So, buddy thought that crummy documentary I have been working on for three years was never going to see the light of day, eh? Well, buddy was wrong. Apparently, there are some canucks out there that actually want to see the thing.
Cleanflix, a film that I shot for two years and edited for one with my co-director Andrew James, will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival this September. TIFF is one of the premiere festivals in the world, along with Cannes and Sundance, and boasts an annual attendance in the neighborhood of 300,000 people. Screening at a festival this size offers some amazing opportunities for our film. The announcement was made today on Indie Wire and a media circus ensued with articles in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, among others.
We sent out our own press release too, hoping to spark some interest from our local Utah media outlets, but they were less interested. Guess what? Don't need 'em. Variety refers to Cleanflix as one of this year's "hot docs" and we are seeing interest in the film throughout the industry. From an interview with Toronto programmer, Thom Powers:
Needless to say, we are very excited for the opportunity to screen at such an incredible event. Other films premiering alongside ours include Steven Soderbergh's new film with Matt Damon and Diablo Cody's new film with Megan Fox. There are also films starring my personal role models Bill Murray and Ricky Gervais, and what looks to be an amazing concert film featuring the White Stripes. But mostly, I'm excited to screen alongside such an great group of documentary films.
There is always a lot of pressure to promote and sell your film and yourself at an event like this, but that is all just fading away into the background for me. I am just happy that we have a film that we love and that we get to share it with so many people in such an ideal setting. This promises to be a truly wonderful experience for us.
You can blame Canada for that.
So, buddy thought that crummy documentary I have been working on for three years was never going to see the light of day, eh? Well, buddy was wrong. Apparently, there are some canucks out there that actually want to see the thing.Cleanflix, a film that I shot for two years and edited for one with my co-director Andrew James, will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival this September. TIFF is one of the premiere festivals in the world, along with Cannes and Sundance, and boasts an annual attendance in the neighborhood of 300,000 people. Screening at a festival this size offers some amazing opportunities for our film. The announcement was made today on Indie Wire and a media circus ensued with articles in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, among others.
We sent out our own press release too, hoping to spark some interest from our local Utah media outlets, but they were less interested. Guess what? Don't need 'em. Variety refers to Cleanflix as one of this year's "hot docs" and we are seeing interest in the film throughout the industry. From an interview with Toronto programmer, Thom Powers:
Needless to say, we are very excited for the opportunity to screen at such an incredible event. Other films premiering alongside ours include Steven Soderbergh's new film with Matt Damon and Diablo Cody's new film with Megan Fox. There are also films starring my personal role models Bill Murray and Ricky Gervais, and what looks to be an amazing concert film featuring the White Stripes. But mostly, I'm excited to screen alongside such an great group of documentary films.There is always a lot of pressure to promote and sell your film and yourself at an event like this, but that is all just fading away into the background for me. I am just happy that we have a film that we love and that we get to share it with so many people in such an ideal setting. This promises to be a truly wonderful experience for us.
You can blame Canada for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)