Indeed! I’m tired of having censorship imposed on me because parents can’t be bothered to do their damn job and watch what their kids are exposed to. I’m not you kids’ babysitter. I shouldn’t have to watch what I write, draw, view or say (and I won’t- not even in public) because you can’t be bothered to watch them.

Reminds me of one time at a grocery store. I was talking to my fiance (then boyfriend) and used the word ‘fuck’. Well, some bitch dressed like one of those conservative women (plain dress to the ankles, long sleeves and the ridiculous hairdo) with her 5 kids has the gall to turn to me and orders me to watch my language because her kids might hear it. I promptly told her to fuck off, that it’s a free(?) country. She just left. Too bad for her, because I’m not going to walk on eggshells just because I might happen to offend someone.

The kids will probably hear it from TV and school anyway. I heard it from my parents at least 4 dozen times a day as a kid, and I’m not some raging psychopath or violent criminal. But I do swear like a drunken sailor, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as far as I’m concerned. People tell me that I must be lacking intelligence for it, but I kindly inform them that I scored a 127 IQ in highschool. Most of the population of the US has an IQ under 100.

A great quote I once heard:

“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak because a baby can’t chew it.”

Bjartmarr, I don’t see anything behind her neck except a few wisps of hair and “Quentin Tarratino presents”.

Apparantly you are unfamiliar with the work of Quentin Tarantino. Torture is pretty much a given.

But why else would apparently displeased people be suspended from ceilings in dank concrete rooms? Personally, I’ve never seen either of the two films, but the trailers for Hostel made me pretty aware that the film was about tourists being tortured. As far as the screaming, her mouth looks partly open, but the lighting and the title do successfully obscure her mouth. Would a child be able to successfuly discern her impending doom from the visual context? It depends on the age, worldliness, and attention span of said child. I probably could’ve done it at about 7, but I was a weird kid.

Are you really contending that “not about to be tortured” = “nothing violent”?

Perhaps it’s just that we (I assume) know the context — the first movie was about people paying to torture & kill unsuspecting tourists.

I propose that’s an unsupportable assumption. I have never until this thread heard of “Hostel II” and until your post heard of “Hostel” - in fact, my understanding that a) there was a predecessor to “Hostel II” and b) that it’s name would be “Hostel” is speculation on my part fueled only by your post.

How many people actually sent to see the movie? If you stopped 20 people at random and asked them, “Tell me something you know about the movie Hostel“, how many of them would have a clue regarding the violence of the content?

But I kind of think that even NOT knowing the context, it’s a very violent image. She’s clearly not happy to be in that position. I’ve never seen someone pray upside down.

Granted.

The way her hair is fanned out behind her implies that she is moving around, probably trying to break free from whatever is holding her upside down.

The way her hair is fanned out behind her looks just like my daughter’s ponytail looked when she hung upside down from the swing set cross bar. Something she did a nubmer of times; I was not a “Stay inside and play with your dolls” father. It appears to be hanging straight down (given the constraints of someone with non-limp hair and being bent from the elastic band holding it in a ponytail). I never even considered that she was moving - there’s no diagonal aspect to the hair where it’s swung out to one side or another. I still don’t see her moving. She looks quite passive (from a physical viewpoint) to me, except that she’s obviously going to some effort to hold her arms up.

It looks like there may be tape over her mouth,

Where? Maybe your monitor is better than mine, but I don’t see a hint of tape.

but even if there isn’t, the title serves as a silencer

Granted. Which is interesting, since Greylocke says she’s screaming.

and “Quentin Tarantino presents” (I always thought that guy was a douche, but now there is no doubt) is looking like it’s about to decapitate her. Don’t think that text placement is random.

You have a rather more vivid imagination than I, then. I hadn’t even thought about it, but now that you mention it my impression is that it’s a) above the title so as to read “Quentin Tarratino presents Hostel II” in normal order, and b) in a clear spot where black text can be read. Now, your interpretation of Mr. Tarratino’s intent may well be correct. But it didn’t jump out to me like that. I won’t say that he didn’t mean that, but I would challenge that it’s established that this would be the impression of the average viewer.

zombie z, I’ve never seen nor heard of either “Hostel” or “Hostel II”, so the context means nothing to me. Now, she does look pretty unhappy, but it’s a long way from there to presuming that this presents an image of someone who’s about to be tortured (which was the original assertion).

BTW, the population of the US as given by the 2000 census is 281.4 million. It’s doubtless larger now, but not by 100 million.

Greylocke:

a woman naked, upside down and screaming.

Upside down? Yes. Naked? It didn’t occur to me she was naked - you can’t see the vast majority of her body. Bare shoulders = naked? I’ve seen plenty of women fully dressed with bare shoulders, haven’t you? Screaming? Her mouth is quite dark, her jaw does not appear to be wide open, the movie title further obscures the picture and I don’t pick up any other clues. I actually thought she was silent, and so did zombie z. What says “screaming” to you?

And no, I wouldn’t advocate torturing them, or somehow treating them as unthinking or unfeeling simply because they see others that way. Lousy way to redeem anybody anyway.

If a child viewed these posters, casually as they tend to, which contains the imagery that will leave an impression on their forming minds?

A] A few men walking away into the distance with the American Flag on the ground and, if you look really closely (and they won’t), a man with a sack on his head.

B] A decapitated head in a grocery scale, a dismembered hand or a woman naked, upside down and screaming.

While I agree that [A] shows real life “bad things” and [B] shows fictional “bad things”, I was under the impression that children have difficulty distinguishing the two. I even thought that this was the point of the MPAA censoring them in the first place.

Surely what the decision should be based upon is the content from a -child’s- point of view and not an adult (and politically biased) one..?

And surely the last image is only emotive if you have prior knowledge about the events that you expect the poster to represent?

Perhaps it’s just that we (I assume) know the context — the first movie was about people paying to torture & kill unsuspecting tourists. But I kind of think that even NOT knowing the context, it’s a very violent image. She’s clearly not happy to be in that position. I’ve never seen someone pray upside down. The way her hair is fanned out behind her implies that she is moving around, probably trying to break free from whatever is holding her upside down. It looks like there may be tape over her mouth, but even if there isn’t, the title serves as a silencer…and “Quentin Tarantino presents” (I always thought that guy was a douche, but now there is no doubt) is looking like it’s about to decapitate her. Don’t think that text placement is random.

I had never seen those particular posters for Saw, and am pretty grossed out.

As far as the ‘Taxi’ poster, I think it’s beautiful. Every time I see it (and this is the third or fourth blog post I’ve seen on this topic), I notice something else that is “just right” about it.

Thank you for associating the actions of some (the MPAA, Bush, and, um, all those crazy-ass conservatives) with every single American. Last I checked, there were about 380 million of us; it would seem clear that there are nearly that many views, ethics, and opinions here as well.

So, I may be a “f**cker,” but at least I’m not an elitist bigoted jackass.

Sincerely,
zz

Nor does anything in that picture say to me “She’s about to be tortured.”

Ron, look right behind her neck.

I guess the image of a woman bound and hanging upsidedown, apparently about to be tortured for the audience’s entertainment,

Maybe it’s the reproduction, but I don’t see any bindings. I do see a woman holding her hands together like she was praying, but I don’t see anything that is binding them in that position. Nor does anything in that picture say to me “She’s about to be tortured.”

I call for an end to the MPAA, and congressional control over its duties.