The MPAA Bravely Protects Children From Disturbing Images
| December 27th, 2007The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rejects movie posters that aren’t suitable for children to view. As the MPAA recently explained, as they rejected a movie’s poster:
Ads will be seen by all audiences, including children. If the advertising is not suitable for all audiences it will not be approved by the advertising administration.
So that’s why they rejected this poster:
Oh, wait, no, they approved that poster. I guess the image of a woman bound and hanging upsidedown, apparently about to be tortured for the audience’s entertainment, is suitable for “all audiences, including children.”
Here’s the poster they rejected:
Oh, my mistake, they found that one suitable for all audiences too.
Okay, here’s the poster they really rejected:
That time I didn’t even fool you, did I? You’re right, the MPAA found that image acceptable for all audiences. There’s no way any kid would be traumatized by something as mundane as a man’s severed head in a grocery scale.
So what was the image that the MPAA rejected as not “suitable” for “all audiences, including children”? Here it is:
This poster for “Taxi To The Dark Side,” a documentary about the U.S. government’s use of torture, is what the MPAA is protecting our children’s tender eyes from.
Because of the hood.
But — the MPAA assures us — their standard is reasonable, because if that “Saw IV” poster had had a hood over the severed head, they would have rejected it too.
Gosh, no double standard there.
Oh, well, at least this is some sort of aberration. It’s not like the MPAA has a history of right-wing double-standards.
(Hat tips to ldragoon and Pop Stalin Designs.)
December 27th, 2007 at 3:00 am
Not to be completely irrelevant, but that’s an amazing poster. Also, clearly I’m going to have to watch this movie, although it will almost certainly disturb me beyond measure.
They should be thinking of disturbing their children when they approve torture in the first place.
This comment was written by Lea.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Yeah, but think of the poor right wing parents whose children are exposed to this:
“Daddy, why are those soldiers going to torture that man”
“Well, it’s not really torture. Waterboarding is like a frat prank. Besides that man is probably some sort of Muslim and therefore deserves to be tortured and if anything is being treated too well.”
And now the child is horribly traumatized by the fact that her parents are exposed as inhuman monsters.
This comment was written by Raznor.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Thanks for the hat tip and I loved the tongue and cheek way you handled this issue. I really wanted to get more ‘political’ on my blog but of course, since it’s for my business, I have to tow a very careful line.
Apparently this isn’t the first time the MPAA has banned a poster that had an anti-war sentiment. They banned the original ‘Road to Guantanamo’ poster too. You can read more about that here. The poster for that one is gruesome in comparison to the ‘Taxi To The Dark Side’ poster but still not as disturbing as some of the torture porn movie posters they allow. Gotta love those kind of standards.
This comment was written by Pop Stalin Design.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I must admit, I found the last poster the most disturbing. But only because I knew the context and therefore knew that Saw, etc, is fiction whereas what the US military is doing to people is very real. A child would almost certainly be more traumatized by any of the first three. (I’m a little traumatized by the idea that people find these things entertaining, but that’s not exactly anything new.)
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Well done.
This comment was written by Elaine Vigneault.Report this comment to the moderators
December 27th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
I don’t think I ever saw those posters before, but JESUS H., I’m not surprised. Remember, deplorable violence is fine as long as it’s perpetrated by Bad People, and Our Good White Christian Soldiers can never be Bad People until someone forces accountability. Then they’re scapegoats.
This comment was written by Damian.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 8:29 am
And unique cases. A few bad apples, &c. And no, we’re not allowed to question what’s wrong with the institution as a whole that “a few bad apples” could get in, get power, and then get away with what they do. Nope, we’re all supposed to just accept this fact, that the military institution is completely set up assuming that each and every member of the military is angelic and that no bad apples could ever get in (or get made in training or in war), and so it’s entirely the fault of the lower-ranking soldiers who get caught and thrown to the press if they do things we know people do in war and to prisoners.
But the truth is something that’s inappropriate for children, teenagers, and adults without parental/media guidance. So movies glorifying war can get G or PG ratings (what was the rating of that WWII pigeon one?), while movies exposing the horrors in war are, of course, NC-17.
“Science fiction action” and “intense depictions of weather” are pretty weird rating-bumpers, but “tells the truth about war” definitely takes the cake.
This comment was written by Gwen.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 10:38 am
And now the child is horribly traumatized by the fact that her parents are exposed as inhuman monsters.
Better to know early, I suppose.
This comment was written by Aloysius Watermelontail.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
And now the child is horribly traumatized by the fact that her parents are exposed as inhuman monsters.
Perhaps we should torture them.
It never ceases to amaze that people who object to evil, dehumanizing behavior then turn around and use dehumanizing language about other people.
Either we’re all people and have worth, or we’re not. It’s defensible, perhaps, to decide that we’re not, but then we can’t really criticize others for reaching the same conclusion.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
[...] Cred: Amptoons [...]
This comment was written by braincell soup » MPAA to the Rescue.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Either we’re all people and have worth, or we’re not.
Out of curiosity, why? I can think of several, consistent ways to decide that some people have worth and others don’t. I don’t see where that can’t be logical. For example, torture and torture advocates are inhuman monsters while those who oppose torture have worth.
Your statement doesn’t allow for anything outside the classic this or that dichotomy and I don’t understand why it has to be only one or the other.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Essentially the last poster is dragging the American flag and its’ politics in the mud, exposing the ugly truth of American policies and that it not fitting for its’ younger generaion to be exposed to , conceal the truth from the poor kids and stand before the flag, take the oath, America the brave, the Greatest, the Bravest and the most God fearing fantastic country in the World.
Sorry it’s not true, a recent poll conducted by Lonely planet and Rough guide (possible the best travel guide books in the World) reported that more than 80% of 20 -35 year olds are not and would not consider taking a holiday in the Grand old US of A, less than 20% would consider going to begin a career.
Personally I’m looking forward to Americas return to an isolationist policy so the rest of the World can get on with its thing without you f**kers interfering and making shit worse than it already is.
*expecting flame war now*
This comment was written by Milander.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
First time reader. Stumbled upon this blog with, you know. stumbleupon. Absolutely fantastic exposure of the double standard. No surprise, of course, because the MPAA has a long history of hypocrisy and small-mindedness, but you did a superb job twisting the metaphorical knife of irony.
So to speak.
This comment was written by Chance.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Then you’re picking the second part of the dichotomy, and saying that some people don’t have worth. I’m not dichotomizing between “all have worth” and “nobody does”, but between “all have worth” and “some do”. Nobody is just a particularly strong case of some. Your position is represented in the choices.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Ah. I see what you meant. Thanks.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
December 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I’m not flaming or anything so please don’t take this as a war or I don’t agree with what you are saying above but If you don’t like the images or content don’t take your kid to it or around it, It’s not someone else’s job to sensor stuff for you it up to you the parent! it becomes wrong when parents and people rely on other people to do it for them same thing in school it is not the teachers job to teach your kid morals or values it is your job. To many people now days pass it off on other people to do their job for them because they are too lazy to do it, However on the same note I do agree that content that is offensive should not be placed out around “times” when parents would be normally taking their kids to see a movie or out and about. But again everyone’s Different that why it is sol up to the parent to deiced what is bad and good.
This comment was written by Chode.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Thats it. I have had enough. I am calling my congressman. Seriously, who do these MPAA bastards think they are? They should be dismantled, taken apart piece by piece, brick by brick. No more shall they gag Lady Liberty, undermine our freedoms, and practice hypocrisy.
I call for an end to the MPAA, and congressional control over its duties.
This comment was written by RootsRadical.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
…Chode, you don’t appear to be responding to the post at all. I don’t think you’ve understood Ampersand’s argument. You might try rereading the post.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 2:35 am
You have a good point. And that’s coming from someone, who’s always annoyed with the “baby-safeing” of our society.
This comment was written by Jackie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
i don’t find your argument to be that compelling for the Saw posters. Thr first was really pretty tame compared to the others. The last one was a mystery though…
This comment was written by jack.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
test
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 29th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
I don’t see any reason to ban the last poster. And I can see some excellent reasons to ban the 2nd and 3rd posters. However:
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.”
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2007 at 4:26 am
Ron, look right behind her neck.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
Dear Milander:
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,
This comment was written by zombie z.zz
Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ron, are you really contending that there is nothing violent about the Hostel II poster??
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.
This comment was written by zombie z.Report this comment to the moderators
December 30th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
[...] Read more @ Alas, A Blog. [...]
This comment was written by MPAA’s Double-Standard at Hoovaloo.com.Report this comment to the moderators
December 31st, 2007 at 11:02 am
[...] MPAA double standard amptoons.com — Rejected and approved movie posters.More… [...]
This comment was written by Daily Links | Akkam's Razor.Report this comment to the moderators
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
After this article, I asked myself the following question:
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?
This comment was written by Graylocke.Report this comment to the moderators
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Robert - nobody said inhuman monsters have no worth. I’m perfectly capable of thinking that some of my relatives are inhuman monsters, and yet still feel they have worth, not least because they just might be redeemable into human monsters (and aren’t we all at least a little bit monstrous?)
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.
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Bjartmarr, I don’t see anything behind her neck except a few wisps of hair and “Quentin Tarratino presents”. I don’t see a rope or a knife or marks on her neck or anything. I’m not trying to be a pain here - what do you see?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Ron, are you really contending that there is nothing violent about the Hostel II poster??
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?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
RonF “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).”
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.
This comment was written by BananaDanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 4th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Apparantly you are unfamiliar with the work of Quentin Tarantino. Torture is pretty much a given.
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
January 11th, 2008 at 4:08 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
This comment was written by MPAA double standard « Kenny’s Entertainment Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2008 at 1:54 am
[...] Curiously, the MPAA allowed lots of severed body parts in posters for Saw IV, but objected to a hood over the head in a poster for a documentary about government-sanctioned torture. Secret [...]
This comment was written by MPAA censorship enforces government doctrine. « I quote myself..Report this comment to the moderators
May 31st, 2008 at 5:40 am
“It’s not someone else’s job to sensor stuff for you it up to you the parent!”
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.”
This comment was written by Angry Reptile Keeper.Report this comment to the moderators