CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRE PANEL DISCUSSION ON “CENSORSHIP”.
The Subtle Side Of Censorship
In America, censorship isn’t overt. It is far more subtle. As a filmmaker, I’ve witnessed four types of censorship. “Fluffy Bunny Syndrome”, “Ox Cart Bias”, “Pierced Tongue Syndrome” and lastly, the only kind that should ever exist, self-censorship.
FLUFFY BUNNY SYNDROME
I’ve sat in on conversations with festival directors that go something like this:
That my friends is Fluffy Bunny Syndrome. It happens all the time. I knew a filmmaker at NYU who had directed a 30 minute short about gangster life in the 1960’s. It was as good as an Elmore Leonard novel. It was awesome. Was it bloody? Yes. Was it violent? Yes. Were the characters authentic and detailed? Yes…but, so what? It was a great film.
It turns out quality didn’t really matter. His film was rejected again and again because it was dark, gritty and violent.
Festival after festival rejected his masterful 30 minute short. Many flat-out told him it was because of the subject matter. Yes, it was long. That made it difficult to program as well. But, I’ve seen enough 30 minute shorts in festivals to know that wasn’t the primary issue. All his characters ended up dead. They died in terrible ways. They were foul, despicable outlaws and they paid the price for their choices.
And not one festival embraced his skill.
He quit filmmaking. He gave up. And, that’s a shame because he was damn good. He inspired me. I loved his dialogue. I loved his attention to detail. I loved his devotion to simple, ordinary tasks like cooking or washing a car right before an act of brutality broke out. He was a dark poet. If he’d kept at the craft he’d have produced something as good as Scorsese, Peckinpah, Leone, or Tarantino.
Now, I respect any audience member’s right to say they don’t want to see a dark, bloody crime drama. But, festivals should be judging movies based on craft, not content. And, they have a strong aversion to these genres. If anyone thinks it was easy for “Reservoir Dogs” to get into Cannes, they don’t understand how prevalent Fluffy Bunny Syndrome is.
I didn’t believe this form of censorship existed at first. So, when I sat down to make “Saturday Night Special” I decided to ignore what I had witnessed and make a dark, gritty crime drama about bottom-feeder meth dealers in Spokane, Washington. The movie ends with a gun battle, half the characters are dead and the other half are on the run, wounded and bloody. I managed to get it into eight festivals. We won awards at two. But, just like my friend, I got many rejection emails from festivals that felt it was “too dark”. I even got phone calls from three festival directors that acknowledged it was a well crafted movie, but they didn’t like how dark the ending was. One asked me if I could change the ending and let some of the characters live they’d screen it. I said that wasn’t possible. And he apologized…and reiterated what many were saying. The movie is simply too dark.
They have a point. It was shot at night.
But, I’m guessing they meant something else. After the third festival director called me I understood that I was pushing against a form of censorship that was subtle and cloaked in self-righteousness.
The message was clear. I was a good storyteller. But, I chose immoral subject matter. They’d never say those words, but that certainly was the tone. “Why does it have to be so bleak?” “It’s a shame it isn’t more…happy.” “Those kind of movies just aren’t my thing.”
I learned my lesson well. I’m working on a short film right now and I’m deliberately crafting it so it won’t question or confront the deep and abiding love so many festivals have for fluffy bunnies.
THE OX CART BIAS
A friend of mine gave me “The National Geographic All Roads DVD Collection”. It contains about 50 short films from around the globe. I was and am thankful, because it was a very nice gift. And, it sounds like fun to watch, right? I opened it immediately and pressed play on the first DVD.
And then, I wanted to gouge my eyeballs out with spoons.
Underexposed shots. Out of focus shots. Oversaturated shots. Weird composition. Overmodulated sound. Cheesy sound effects. And, the scripts and acting were universally tepid, illogical, unrealistic drivel.
National Geographic certainly has an Ox Cart Bias. If it is made by or about a third world culture, they treat it as if it is immediately special. I know people who have this bias. They didn’t like Guy Ritchie’s “Snatch” but they’re down for any movie shot in Tagalog. I’ve never understood this bias, but it is prevalent. And, if you’re making an intimate character drama set here in America you’re at an immediate disadvantage, no matter how good your movie is. Look at how many second-rate foreign films win Oscars for Best Animated, Live Action or Documentary Short. The audience member, festival programmer and film reviewer who suffer from Ox Cart Bias will go out of their way to hate your work but they’ll jump up and down about anything from Borneo. That same person would lambast a Hollywood studio for trying to remake “The Bicycle Thief” but probably loves “Beijing Bicycle”.
Now, it would be easy to misinterpret what I’m saying as a rant against cinema from the developing world. That’s not how I feel at all. I love movies, no matter where they are from, as long as they are well made. I cried in “Slumdog Millionaire”. I saw the (slightly sappy) ending coming straight at me, but I didn’t care. I loved the film. I loved the cinematography, I loved the actors, I loved the music and I loved the feel good ending. I was cheering when the closing credits turned into a Bollywood dance number. I saw “Lagaan” in theatres and raved about it to my friends. How many of you have ever seen the Bollywood version of Three Men & A Baby? Do you know who Amir Khan is? How about Hrithik Roshan? Okay, stop questioning my world cinema cred! I’m not a hater!
I’ve spent years in Mexican, Indian and Chinese movie theatres. Whenever I go to a foreign country I take a cab to a local movie theatre and watch a local film. Sometimes, I see something great and I’m thrilled. I love seeing a foreign director make some bold and unusual choice that I know I can borrow and adapt for my own storytelling style. Usually, I see stuff that’s far worse than what Hollywood calls filmmaking. But, I’m out there, always the optimist, always trying to find another hidden treasure. And, when I see that great movie no one in The West has heard of, its like discovering a pirate’s chest of gold.
Loving cinema, in all its forms, is not the same thing as suffering from Ox Cart Bias.
“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is probably the greatest mainstream example of Ox Cart Bias. I saw it opening night in my favorite theatre in Portland, Oregon, The Lloyd Center Cinemas main auditorium, a THX certified auditorium with about 900 seats. The first scene began, and I’m loving the sword fighting. Someone suddenly climbs up a wall for no reason…and I decide to go with it. Its a magical universe where the laws of physics don’t apply…okay, I can handle that. But, then the dialogue begins. It is boring. It is ponderous. Characters make choices that aren’t logical. The tone of the movie shifts erratically from broad farce to dark drama. Huge chunks of the movie are flashbacks. It isn’t handled deftly or expertly. While beautiful, I felt the story was weak.
I told this to friends and I was lambasted. “It’s from a different culture! You can’t judge those things! You’re seeing this through American eyes! It’s a masterpiece and you just don’t get it!”
Thank God I moved to China. There, I heard a very different story. “B? diàn y?ng huài! Bo shì Zh?ng guóren diàn y?ng! Shì M?i guóren diàn y?ng!” Translation: “What a terrible movie! That wasn’t a Chinese movie. It was an American movie!” The overwhelming opinion amongst Chinese citizens is that “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” bastardized one of their most beloved television shows and dumbed down the material so it would play well for an American audience. They’re pissed because they feel their culture wasn’t as important as US box office. Most of the Chinese film lovers I know felt the script was awful. And, I’ve heard Chinese film lovers say “Yeah, I’ve grown up with these wire-fu soap operas. But, the rest of the world hasn’t. Could they find a subtle way to explain why characters are defying the laws of gravity? Hello!”
So, if some 22 year old film fan in Beijing grokks what I’m thinking, I don’t feel bad saying it out loud…not all foreign films are well made. Many are great. Many suck eggs. And, the Americans who refuse to acknowledge this actually suffer from a cultural blind spot. Their trying to look liberal, open-minded and accepting when in reality they’re condescending.
The honest opinion was that kid from Beijing who gets visibly angry when he talks about his favorite TV show being raped and not understanding why Americans paid to see a piece of crap.
But, the hippy-dippy cinephile from Eugene, Oregon (who has never left the US) is absolutely certain “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is a Chinese masterpiece. She probably likes “Hero”, too. The Communist propaganda goes right over her head. Major Ox Cart Bias.
PIERCED TONGUE SYNDROME
There were two cliched types of filmmakers at NYU. In general, the boys made stupid, violent movies with guns and the girls made stupid, sexual movies in which they act in their own film and have sex on an alter in a church.
This would be funny to me, except I saw four different female directors make that same movie…in different classes…at different schools…in different years.
And, all four films got into film festivals. All four. They were made by Sophomores at NYU, USC and Cal Arts. They were out of focus. They were shot on grainy 16mm film. They had jumpcuts for no reason. They had no art direction. Sometimes they had a vampire. Sometimes the girl was alone. In one, the girl leaves the church and buries a goldfish in a landfill, then she spits in her hand and dances. Sometimes the camera randomly cut to crosses. But, they had one thing in common.
They were crap.
And, yet, certain types of festivals loved ‘em. If you make a second-rate documentary on piercing culture, it will get into festivals. If you make any movie about tattoo artists who beat vegan midgets it will get into festivals. If you want to out-Warhol Warhol and make some bizarre fetish movie, it will get into festivals. That isn’t a sign the movie is good. It simply means that particular festival employs a programmer who suffers from Pierced Tongue Syndrome.
I’m a huge “Twin Peaks” fan. Huge. But, no one will ever convince me that ABC was wrong in canceling the show. By the second season the show had jumped the shark. And, when I hear someone get all twitter-pated about “Blue Velvet” I want to hit them in the head with a shovel. Dennis Hopper sucks helium. So what? Yes, the movie starts with the shot of a severed ear. I was taught ad naseum how important that was. I don’t buy it. No, it is not a deeply profound metaphor on the evil that lurks in suburbia.
Most importantly, that bastard ruined “Dune”. You have no idea how angry that makes me.
Just because something is different doesn’t mean it is also valuable. Something can be different and amazing…and sometimes it can be…”Repo Man”. Which sucks. Really.
When a movie is great, it’s great. In spite of the subject matter, I think Stanley Kubrick’s “Lolita” is a masterpiece. “Eyes Wide Shut” is just friggin’ lame, man. And, if you can’t tell the difference…maybe you’ve got a bit of Pierced Tongue Syndrome going on.
SELF-CENSORSHIP
At last, we get to the only kind of censorship that is acceptable. Censoring oneself. Clearly, I struggle with this issue…at least when I blog.
In general, I won’t write a sex scene. It’s a deliberate choice. The reason is that I’m a storyteller and I feel that the story usually stops when a sex scene begins. I find them about as interesting as car chases. If I begin work on a script that requires a sex scene (or a car chase) and I can make that scene about dialogue and character interaction I’ll write it. But, in general, I stay away from sex scenes. I’ve seen too many films fail to make them interesting.
They also make audiences squirm in a way that I don’t enjoy. I was 19 when I saw “Bad Lieutenant” with my dad. There was nothing fun about that experience. It wasn’t entertaining. It wasn’t enlightening. It was simply uncomfortable. I apologized to my dad for two years. I won’t do that to an audience.
Now, if you believe differently that’s fine by me. Disagreement is what the First Amendment is all about. If I was a festival director and you made a fantastic film that happened to have a few sex scenes, I’d program it. I don’t apply my personal writing predilections to other storytellers. You do your thing. I respect it, as long as it is well crafted.
I won’t show how to commit a serious crime. I’ll research everything, but I leave out details. For “A Lonely Place For Dying” we researched how Special Forces made “mousetrap bombs” (not their real name) so I knew what they’d really look like. But, in the film we only show the final device (with one detail changed) so they can’t be recreated. They look extremely authentic…except, if Special Forces inspected one of our props they’d notice we left something out. The device can’t actually work.
And, that’s important, because yet again I’m a storyteller. My job is to convince people that the fictional universe I’ve created is plausible. It is not my job to educate people on how to hurt someone else. Last time I checked, most people are well equipped for that particular task and don’t need my help at all.
I’ll show violence, but only if it is honest. And, that means that violence is bloody, dangerous, painful and often goes awry. I can’t do cartoon violence. I can’t have a hero shoot an impossible number of bullets from a gun and never get hurt. I could never have an explosion go off while our heroes walk toward the camera stoically. I’m a genre guy, but I’m trying to be like Elmore Leonard, not Michael Bay.
FINAL THOUGHTS
I’m fairly certain I offended someone with this post. Many readers may believe I never talked about censorship at all. And, that gets to the heart of my argument. In America, all censorship is nuanced. We pass judgement on the ideas of other people’s work and reject the work outright. I find anyone who judges movies based on subject matter rather than craftsmanship doesn’t get the First Amendment. I don’t judge ideas. I judge how they are executed. I don’t have a left, right, liberal, conservative, religious, anti-religious filter of any kind whatsoever. I don’t expect other filmmakers to pull the same lever as I do in a voting booth…I just expect them to be excellent at their craft. In my opinion, that’s the only thing that should be judged.
If I was running a film festival you’d see documentaries about the right to own hand guns next to Christian dramas and lesbian romantic comedies. I wouldn’t judge other people’s ideas. I would only judge their execution.
But, that’s not the world we live in. We live in a world of fluffy bunnies, ox carts and pierced tongues. The irony of this is it makes me the loneliest independent filmmaker alive. I often feel like the lone guy, holding up a torch for a rippin’ good yarn while everyone else has an agenda and doesn’t care about how to craft a film.
I don’t dress weird. I’m a middle class guy who has been married for 13 years and has a three year old son. We watch Peter Pan and play with Thomas The Train. I’m kinda…odd…compared to the rest of the independent film community. Everyone else is trying to be Frank Lloyd Wright, and I’m just building a Craftsman.
Oh, well. I gotta get back to work. Some characters of mine need killin’.
CLICK HERE TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRE PANEL DISCUSSION ON “CENSORSHIP”.
May 10th, 2009 at 11:12 am
I totally believe there is Ox Cart Bias among film festivals. But I don’t feel it’s worth fighting. Especially when you take some of your reasoning to its natural conclusion and realize that you can then argue that every decision to program one film over another is a kind of “bias.” Festivals do have to reject most of their submissions, after all. This isn’t a crime. It’s not even worthy of being called censorship, because censorship is a much more insidious, dangerous thing. We should reserve that label for the egregious acts that deserve it.
When a festival programmer chooses light, feel good films over dark, depressing ones, that would simply be what I refer to as taste. And one of the key functions of the programmer is to apply her/his taste to the festival’s line-up. In fact, there are festivals that only want dark, disturbing violent films. That’s not Cannes, but there are still many good ones around. The fact that such festivals would actually reject the fuzzy bunny story over the axe murderer story isn’t censorship either. Again, that’s taste. Rather, censorship would be when a programmer’s rejection of a film is targeting a specific group of people or a vulnerable idea. Violent mafiosos don’t really represent “vulnerable people or ideas” to me, so to reject it doesn’t smack of censorship to me either. It might be a great film that deserves to be seen, but just because a dumb festival programmer can’t discern its merits doesn’t put it into the same league as censorship (and lets face it, many festival programmers are just mindless sheep following the herd anyhow).
Censorship hurts people in a “systemic” way. When the result is only hurting the feelings of a single filmmaker, that’s not censorship.
May 17th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
This article seems to beg the question, “What is art” instead of discussing the broader side of censorship.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:54 am
And yet I continue to think about it. How an industry-wide bias can effectively squelch artistic directions.
May 19th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I’m also not convinced we should pass judgement on the execution and technical quality of the artist. We just shouldn’t pass judgement. Period.
The reality is that we live in a world of people with varying degrees of technical proficiency, and various identities and cultures. Everyone has a right to self-expression no matter the technical mastery. Everyone does the best job possible.
I admire Justin’s efforts for self-expression, but if we judge others for any reason then we’re just as guilty. I admire Justin, Ang Lee, Kenneth Anger, and Sadie Benning. I admire any means an artist expresses themselves.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Thanks for saying this, seriously. You have no idea how much it means to some of us out there. And I’m sorry, but this whole, “Everyone should get an A for effort” thinking is what has put is in the current morass of cultural mediocrity. It’s the reason someone like Harold Bloom is marginalized for championing Shakespeare as ‘apart from all others’ while any dime-a-dozen poet or novelist from a third-world background is put on a pedestal. It’s SICKENING. And it does a disservice to quality and the expectancy of getting some kind of philosophical depth in art work that goes beyond a mere historical and multi-cultural context. Actually, never mind depth, just being somewhat entertained would be nice at this point.
But I agree with others that this isn’t really about censorship. I think it’s about putting mediocrity and low thinking on a pedestal while shunning anything that goes deeper. In actuality, it’s art-phobia, to borrow a phrase from Michael Herr’s book on Kubrick. In this Alice’s wonderland, The Kite Runner is deep literature while Moby Dick is just a silly tale about the sea. Nevermind there are at least a thousand sentences in it that make your hairs stand on end because Melville seems to be peering into your soul and putting his analysis on the page. The ‘literati’ wouldn’t get it anyway… they’re about as dense and ponderous as a cinderblock.
Also - regardless of technical proficiency, like the poster says, “I expect them to be excellent at their craft.” Likewise, I don’t care if something is shot on an old VHS home movie camera as long as it fits the story, the story is well told, and the acting is believable. I’m sorry, THOSE are prerequisites for me watching a movie. And I can deal with some technical glitches if the SOUND is good. Bad sound is unacceptable… always has been, always will be. I mean, look at Pi. The super grainy black-and-white aesthetic works for the movie and it was probably born out of financial necessity, but made to SEEM like a brilliant artistic choice. That’s taking what you have and making it work for the story and your budget.
Luis, you’re right, everyone has a right to express themselves… and audiences have a right to ignore the work or pass judgement on it. Only in this weird, inverse world of film festivals does this stuff get seen. There was a recent article on the Huffington Post called, “What Killed the Independent Film?” and the comments section was brilliant. One person said they were at Sundance this year and couldn’t believe the stuff that got in. Filmmakers need to first focus on whether or not they can actually GET a message across and TELL a story before they start getting all expressive. This, “self-expression by any means necessary” way of thinking is putting the cart before the horse and probably forcing many filmmakers to quit before they ever had a chance because nobody outside of film festivals wants to watch their movies. I mean… I’m a liberal and I’d call what passes for filmmaking at many festivals ‘liberal porn.’ It’s all designed to make rich, upper-middle class white people feel good about themselves or feel like they’re doing charity work by letting in films about albino lesbians living in the Carpathian mountains who set up a socialistic society that somehow works… and they learn to breed without the need of a penis. Like you said, it’s actually very condescending and does a disservice to people of different cultural backgrounds actually TRYING to make good films, just the same as it does to Americans.
But take heart… film festivals are marginalizing themselves and it won’t be long before all these wannabe literary geniuses programming them no longer have any place to scratch their chin and feel smart. Many filmmakers that I know who have experienced (myself included) exactly what you’re talking about won’t even apply unless they have an ‘in’. So the days of getting thousands of entries with crisp checks for $50 will be over soon. So will those festival sponsorships as they see the dollars being spent aren’t really any kind of return when the same boring people show up year after year. Even the big festivals are whining now that Hollywood doesn’t want to buy indies anymore… uhh, if you actually program A GOOD one that an audience wants to watch they will. Brick, Primer, and Teeth are all perfect examples with a wide range of budgets but they all have one thing in common - an indie spirit combined with a BROAD APPEAL. One blogger called it an ‘inward facing circle jerk’… couldn’t have said it better myself.