MPAA Rejects Taxi to the Dark Side Poster
The Association prefers hats to hoods, apparently.
The poster submitted by ThinkFilm for Taxi to the Dark Side -- the Alex Gibney documentary opening January 18 -- has been rejected by the MPAA.
The MPAA rejects posters on a semi-regular basis -- it happened this year with the original one-sheets for Hostel Part II and Captivity -- so Taxi's rejection, in and of itself, isn't surprising. Not surprising, that is, until you look at the poster, which depicts two soldiers walking a hooded prisoner away from the camera. That's it -- no gore, no dismembered flesh, no bloody dental instruments. Just a guy in a hood.
It's the hood, as you might have already guessed, that the MPAA has problems with; last year, the Association rejected the artwork for The Road to Guantanamo, which depicted a hooded prisoner hanging by his wrists. According to Variety, Roadside Attractions' co-president, Howard Cohen, said the studio was told "the burlap bag over the prisoner's head depicted torture, which was not appropriate for children to see." This is reinforced by the MPAA's statement regarding Taxi to the Dark Side, which follows:
"We treat all films the same. 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."
Gibney is predictably peeved:
"Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real."
The image in the poster is real -- sort of. It's actually a combination of two photos; one, taken by Corbis' Shaun Schwarz, depicted the prisoner with one soldier, while the second soldier was added in later. The Schwarz photo has its own interesting story, also involving censorship. From Variety:
Ironically, the original Schwarz photo was censored by the military, which erased his camera's memory. The photographer eventually retrieved the image from his hard drive.
ThinkFilm has announced plans to appeal the MPAA's ruling, although the studio's distribution president, Mark Urman, says the company "doesn't know what that entails."
Source: Variety
The MPAA rejects posters on a semi-regular basis -- it happened this year with the original one-sheets for Hostel Part II and Captivity -- so Taxi's rejection, in and of itself, isn't surprising. Not surprising, that is, until you look at the poster, which depicts two soldiers walking a hooded prisoner away from the camera. That's it -- no gore, no dismembered flesh, no bloody dental instruments. Just a guy in a hood.
It's the hood, as you might have already guessed, that the MPAA has problems with; last year, the Association rejected the artwork for The Road to Guantanamo, which depicted a hooded prisoner hanging by his wrists. According to Variety, Roadside Attractions' co-president, Howard Cohen, said the studio was told "the burlap bag over the prisoner's head depicted torture, which was not appropriate for children to see." This is reinforced by the MPAA's statement regarding Taxi to the Dark Side, which follows:
"We treat all films the same. 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."
Gibney is predictably peeved:
"Not permitting us to use an image of a hooded man that comes from a documentary photograph is censorship, pure and simple. Intentional or not, the MPAA's disapproval of the poster is a political act, undermining legitimate criticism of the Bush administration. I agree that the image is offensive; it's also real."
The image in the poster is real -- sort of. It's actually a combination of two photos; one, taken by Corbis' Shaun Schwarz, depicted the prisoner with one soldier, while the second soldier was added in later. The Schwarz photo has its own interesting story, also involving censorship. From Variety:
Ironically, the original Schwarz photo was censored by the military, which erased his camera's memory. The photographer eventually retrieved the image from his hard drive.
ThinkFilm has announced plans to appeal the MPAA's ruling, although the studio's distribution president, Mark Urman, says the company "doesn't know what that entails."
Source: Variety
Related Items
| Movie: | The Road to Guantanamo |
| Hostel: Part II | |
| Captivity | |
| Celeb: | Alex Gibney |
|
Ender7406 writes: on Dec 19 2007 06:15 AM One of the FEW times I agree with the MPAA. But come on, RT, sticking a Jimmy Fallon movie on the side of this article? We couldn't even get Robert DeNiro in there? Tsk tsk. (Reply to this) |
|
Ashron writes: on Dec 19 2007 06:30 AM Why would you agree with that ruling? It's a ridiculous ruling and seems pretty arbitrary to me. I could see if he was hooded and bleeding and had chains with hooks dangling from his body, but just hooded? Puuleease. (Reply to this) |
|
rustdog writes: on Dec 19 2007 06:44 AM How many documentary posters do children see? Most kids go to the big theater chains where these types of movies aren't shown. It's not like this poster will be hanging next to Horton Hears a Who. My son was scared of the One Missed Call poster hanging at the theater, but I explained to him it was a silly horror movie and he was ok. I'd bet money he wouldn't have looked twice at the documentary poster described, but if he did as a resposible parent I'd explain the poster honestly. Censorship is for ignorant cowards. (Reply to this) |
|
Gimy writes: on Dec 19 2007 06:54 AM agree 132% rustdog, even on the parenting part of your post. its clear this is a political thing, shocker, because of who's involved in the MPAA. this is why they have no credibility whatsoever. this has absolutely NOTHING to do with kids, or what they'd see. if that were the case...Saw would never have any posters out, EVER. this is just another day in the life of the MPAA, doing what they want and letting anybody without big money or big pull...to be their b3tch. bottom line, if you aren't in line with the MPAA's agenda(religious, political, etc) you better have the dough... (Reply to this) |
|
Baccus83 writes: on Dec 19 2007 08:56 AM This is absolute bull****. The Saw posters are okay but THIS gets the axe? And can we please stop with the mantra "It's for the children." You know what, I'll decide what's good for my children to see. And if they see something that's maybe not good, I'll try to talk to them about it. It's called parenting. I don't need some MPAA mom telling me that a picture of a man in a hood is not appropriate for my children to see. TURN ON THE DAMN NEWS! This stuff is all over the place! (Reply to this) |
|
dahluzz writes: on Dec 19 2007 09:10 AM my money's on the MPAA either anticipating and trying to avoid heat from the government (a preemptive manuver, if you will) or the MPAA already having been superceded by the government and being instructed to ban the poster. Either way, the State wasn't having this and the MPAA is an organization that carries out its bidding. All major ad media like this is government-regulated. The powers that be can't stop the film itself from being produced, but advertising is one of their main systems of control. (Reply to this) |
|
Bloody Mathias writes: on Dec 19 2007 09:14 AM The MPAA has to be the most illogical group ever. (Reply to this) |
|
MattBaerFTW writes: on Dec 19 2007 10:12 AM god damnit next they are gonna have to hold my ****ing hand while im watching the movie to make sure i dont get emotionally distressed **** them and our prude society (Reply to this) |
|
thereign writes: on Dec 19 2007 12:11 PM The original poster to The Little Mermaid(a DISNEY kids' movie) with a penis semi-unobtrusively drawn into it was okay to have hanging in theaters(and on subsequent video release covers), but something as plain as this is offensive? Gimme a damn break! There are enough real-life horrors to shield kids from in this world, that one little poster with a hooded man on it won't sway the balance one way or the other. Let PARENTS decide which images are right for their kids...not the f'in MPAA. (Reply to this) |
|
Jimbo93 writes: on Dec 19 2007 12:47 PM Just another example that Jack Kirby's "This film is not yet rated" is right and the MPAA really is making illogical and immature decisions. If you haven't seen that documentary, see it now. (Reply to this) |
|
RBatty024 writes: on Dec 19 2007 03:32 PM This is ridiculous. Didn't one of the Saw posters show severed fingers? But a hood on a guy that's going way too far! (Reply to this) |
|
kissman24 writes: on Dec 19 2007 04:08 PM Sounds like censorship to me. When I think of all the scary stuff seen on horror movie posters over the year, it's clear to me that this rejection is due to an agenda by whoever is in the MPAA. (Reply to this) |
|
theunrulyone writes: on Dec 19 2007 07:21 PM It is ridiculous and totally uncalled for. I know they banned it because of the hood and the association with tortre, but so what? It does not sound like the poster was depicting an act of torture, and last time I checked movie posters are supposed to be provocative and entice interest in the movie. There is no doubt that this sounds like (and most likely is) censorship, and that is a shame. It's just another in the long list of censorship and hand holding. (Reply to this) |
|
BowieSwimmer writes: on Dec 19 2007 07:23 PM We all know the MPAA censors all the time, covering it up as "protecting the masses." Please. Old news. The MPAA has always had an agenda. It will never say it does. We will continue to complain about the terrible job they do. Simple as that. (Reply to this) |
|
Matanuki writes: on Dec 20 2007 03:34 AM Glad to see we're all in sync on this one. Of course it's ridiculous bs. Inappropriate for children? Give me a break. Any kid who can see the image of a man's head in a burlap bag as representative of torture should not only be allowed to see the image, but should also be talked to about and/or encouraged to research for themselves why that image is significant. In fact this issue should be brought up by teachers and parents, to illustrate for the children how corrupt these institutions are. They should know that not all adults are not worth looking up to and respecting. "What does corrupt mean, sir?" "Why that's very smart of you for asking, Jimmy. Let me show you, rather than just tell you." (Reply to this) |
|
jdinc1998 writes: on Dec 23 2007 11:40 AM MPAA is out of their mind. I put the posters up in my theatre and have not put up the last 2 Saw Movie posters because of how graphic they were. I don't know how MPAA passed those posters but wouldn't pass this poster. (Reply to this) |
|
duffman6 writes: on Dec 30 2007 08:19 PM "We treat all movies the same" is rubbish. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, showing a HOODED man waving a bloody chainsaw above is head is acceptable, but a hooded man being held by soldiers is unacceptable. The hypocrisy is overwhelming, with or without some kind of political bias based on current events. (Reply to this) |
|
paskunia writes: on Jan 17 2008 01:01 PM If someone made a biography about the life and death of Daniel Pearl, the American journalist who was beheaded by terrorists, and there was a picture on the movie's poster of someone holding a bag with his head in it, that, too, would no doubt be censored. It works both ways. (Reply to this) |
|
WAKE_UP! writes: on Mar 06 2008 02:55 AM Discovery is controlled by the fascists in America. Bush operatives have infiltrated that bogus organization which I encourage you to boycott forever for their sins against the truth! Even their web site is loaded with neo fascists who reject the truth also. Another Internet wasteland so avoid all of it! (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |












