I had the opportunity to watch a 2008 documentary called, Cure for Love. It was such an interesting film, hence why I’m posting about it here. The synopsis reads, “Cure for Love is a full-length documentary about a controversial evangelical movement that purports to convert gay people into heterosexuals. The film brings us inside this unusual Christian subculture and follows the lives of several young people whose homosexuality is at odds with their religious beliefs.”
Of course, I wasn’t surprised that the types of ministries featured in this doc actually existed – and let’s be clear, I am clearly at odds with the mission of these ministries, particularly those such as Exodus. For me, the most intriguing part of the film was hearing the stories of those who live in tension with their faiths and how they have come to reconcile that dissonance. These are powerful stories of people seemingly struggling with similar issues, yet each has taken a different path in finding a resolution to their conflict.
As a voyeur into their lives, I found myself at times doubtful that some of the folks featured in the film actually had found a way to make peace with the tension between their faith and their sexuality; however I am mindful that I don’t live their lives and really can’t relate to their struggle – seeing as how I am neither a Christian nor a homosexual. This film did reinforce, yet again, the powerful influence that religion has over people’s lives (a concept I cannot personally relate too – but one that fascinates me).
If you, like me, are intrigued by the power faith has in the lives of so many people, then this film is worth checking out. It’s a well-balanced documentary that does shed some light on (IMO) questionable dogma, but even more than that, it is a film that speaks of the power of love. For some that is the love of their Saviour, Jesus Christ; for others that is the love they find in their same sex partners.
Run time: 59 mins
Source: National Film Board of Canada
One of my main reasons for starting to blog – other than it gives me a forum to hen-peck and squawk about things that ruffle my feathers – was to open some dialogue and learn from the masses that might just perch here for a bit. I really enjoy engaging in conversation with others. I’ve been honoured in my short time blogging with some great feedback from reader Doug Smith (check out some of Mr. Smith’s comments). Most recently a friend of mine, Patrice, sent me an email regarding some of my comments concerning independent film. With her permission, I’d like to share her comments because they are insightful, educational and provide some counter-commentary to my musings.
“I’d like to make the following observations of my own for clarification as well, which if you approve; I’d like to post on your blog.
- Super 8/16mm/35mm are ORIGINAL filmmaking technologies, they’re not just “traditional film-making technologies”, because a significant amount, actually most movies nowadays that make it to mainstream cinema screens, most dramatic content, commercials, music videos on television, are still predominantly shot on FILM; Super 16 and 35mm to be exact. Most reality television, daytime soaps, talk shows and news serials continue to be digitally shot. Also, there are ONLY but a few dramas on television that are shot on digital, case and point; the new season of HOUSE;
- Also digital filmmaking does not really exist. digital is a technology, just as film is its own technology; they’re both completely separate mediums as such. So I’d venture to say that there’s digital cinema/digital production, but there is no film that is made from digital and vice versa. digital is either tape or memory cards; film is celluloid based; a very intricately constructed material with endless stock options and possibilities;
- Digital media is consuming the mainstream consumer markets, which means that the technology is more readily available to the average consumer, and there are a lot of festivals and online options for digital producers to exhibit their works; although I would warn against this, if artists are focused on developing a more professional portfolio, and also if they’re hoping to be compensated for their work. Digital media has made significant headway in certain commercial industries as well; but I’d caution for viewers to pay close attention to the fact that again the overwhelming technology used in the Oscar and Genie Award nominated and winning films, is still film Super 16mm or predominantly 35mm;
- Digital projection is steadily being phased into mainstream cinema chains, but still today ONLY about 5%-6% of the world’s screens actually have digital projectors installed; so that also means that most of the screens on the planet, are still using 35mm projectors.
In closing, I would say that IFCO’s filmmakers are actually cognizant of just how extremely viable FILM as medium is in contemporary society. IFCO’s filmmakers are using FILM because they’re excited by the medium and its possibilities, and not so much because they’re “protecting a threatened art form from slipping into obscurity”. Audiences need to be more active viewers and not such passive viewers; they need to be better informed as to the creative processes involved in bringing a piece of art to the screen, be it digitally produced/film based imagery. Yes, digital technologies have attempted to sell the possibility to the average consumer that digital camera in hand, immediately gives them credibility as a filmmaker. We really as a society however, have to be cautious about prescribing social pressures on art and artists to jump on bandwagons so to speak. Just because the technology is cheaper, and more accessible, doesn’t make it any more or less relevant than existing technologies. Filmmakers should also be happy to know that through a centre like IFCO; they can produce mostly short films at really affordable rates, in an extremely supportive environment.
“The medium is the message.” – Marshall McLuhan”
Thanks to Patrice and all my readers who comment via email, Facebook and in the comments section of this site. I truly appreciate the dialogue and hope we can have many more virtual conversations in the future!
Cheers, M. xo
Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Independent Filmmaker’s Co-operative of Ottawa (IFCO) 19th annual gala, Celluloid Junkies. IFCO is an artist-run centre that assists its members in cultivating the art of traditional film-making using Super 8, 16mm and/or 35mm films, hence the reference to celluloid for this year’s gala.
If you live in the Ottawa area, and haven’t checked out this annual event, you’re missing out on a opportunity to experience a different side to this oft-labeled sleepy city. You’ll experience the work of some talented filmmakers, some of whom are presenting their work for the first time to an audience. All the films are unique and are testaments to the individual spirits of each of the filmmakers . They’ll be films that will stir base emotions, such as joy and sadness. They’ll be other films that will make you uncomfortable with their content and themes. And, there will be films that will leave you so perplexed that you’ll feel like your mind has just been on an all-night bender and it woke up next to some stranger. Guaranteed though – you will experience something different than your usual Saturday night out at the movies.
With the advent of digital media consuming the film-making industry, artists such as those found exhibiting their work at IFCO’s gala, are rebels protecting a threatened art form from slipping into obscurity. I’m quick to support artists that are brave enough to hone a craft that takes, I’d argue, a lot more patience than its modern derivative. Working in this medium also isn’t cheap. It’s substantially more expensive than working in digital formats; however it seems to me that there is more raw honesty and integrity in these films than in some of the digital counterparts I’ve seen.
I also fully support the rise of digital films, but I think it’s important for consumers and future artists to stay connected to the roots of the art form. Inexpensive and easy-to-use digital cameras have made it such that anyone can easily record, edit and screen (via the Internet) a film. This fast and easy approach should make movie goers, and movie makers, all the more appreciative of artists, such as the IFCO group. These folks nurture and keep alive the predecessor to modern day film-making that has made everyone a critic, director and producer. Clearly, there is something extremely valuable in keeping a piece of history alive. We learn to understand where we’ve come from and the strives and struggles made in making art more accessible to the masses (whether that’s a good thing is entirely another discussion).
Kudos to the staff, volunteers and artists at IFCO on another memorable evening of films! This chick can’t wait to see you next year!
Cheers!
