MPAA Rejects 'Taxi to the Dark Side' Poster
Filed under: Documentary, Awards, New Releases, ThinkFilm, Celebrities and Controversy, Movie Marketing, Politics, Oscar Watch, Images
UPDATE: The Daily Variety story was incorrect; the MPAA actually rejected a trailer for Taxi to the Darkside, and not the poster. Here's the Variety clarification: "The MPAA did not approve a theatrical trailer for Alex Gibney's documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side" that contained scenes with nudity and images that the org deemed inappropriate for all audiences. ThinkFilm has not yet officially submitted the one-sheet art referenced in a Dec. 19 story, but Daily Variety failed to indicate that it was the trailer that was rejected and not the one-sheet artwork."
ThinkFilm is prepping an appeal to the MPAA, but this one doesn't concern a film's rating. It's about a poster. The poster art for Taxi to the Dark Side -- a documentary about the pattern of torture practice that is on the short list for Academy Award consideration -- is causing a stir due to its depiction of a hooded man being led by American soldiers. The original news photo was taken by photographer Shaun Schwarz, and had been censored before -- when the military erased it from Schwarz' camera. (He later retrieved it from his hard drive.) Variety is reporting that the MPAA has officially rejected the poster, and if ThinkFilm goes forward with the marketing, they could have their "R" rating revoked. Taxi to the Dark Side is due for release on January 11th.
An MPAA spokesman says "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." Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room), the film's writer, producer, and director says, "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." I've got to side with Gibney on this one. This isn't horror movie imagery cooked up to sell tickets, this is really happening in the world today. And considering the explosive subject matter, I feel the poster is tastefully done. What do you guys think?
Jeremy Renner Wants To Be An Avenger
Directors We Love: Jim Jarmusch
Indie Roundup: 'Sweetgrass,' 'Clarkworld,' 'Broken Embraces'
Shelf Life: Fight Club_thumbnail.jpg)
Watch: Famous 'Matrix' Scene Re-Created with LEGOs
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-19-2007 @ 1:24PM
Tush said...
I totally agree with Mr. Gibney. It's censorship pure and simple.
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 1:24PM
Sam H. said...
This is one of those (increasingly frequent) times when one has to wonder if having the MPAA around is even worthwhile.
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 1:37PM
Travis Johnson said...
So kids can look at the ridiculous SAW posters that show severed fingers and pulled teeth but can't look at this!? Come on folks.
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 2:02PM
kevjohn said...
I wasn't even aware the MPAA had to approve posters. That is absurd. They let nausea-inducing posters like the ones for Saw, Captivity, and Alvin & the Chipmunks go but pull the trigger on this one?
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 2:45PM
ScreenRant.com said...
I think I'd like to see a movie about radical Islamists torturing prisoners for a change instead of yet another movie about American self-loathing.
Vic
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 4:48PM
Gary said...
ScreenRant, Not to get too deep here but there is a reason why films are being made about "American Self Loathing".
It is the US who are committing these at the same time telling the world they are on a mission to save it, to spread US style democracy and civil rights to the poor people of the middle-east. (not africa mind you just the middle east).
If the US were just honest and carried out these attacks in the name of capitalism and oil then there would be no story, we would all get on with making movies about islamic terrorists and you would be happier.
I cannot for the life of me think who said this in relation to screenwriting but makes sense..
"When there is a lie there is a story".
Oh and the MPAA? Spineless toads who hate movies.
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 6:15PM
JP said...
I agree with Gibney 100%. If people dont want their children seeing these kinds of images then they should tell their government to stop creating them. I shudder to think the MPAA is using children as an excuse to cover-up what is truly going on in the world. I would rather children have access to the truth then shelter them with censorship and turned heads. Maybe then when their generations step into ruling positions they will look back at the world in which they were reared and make a collective decision to fix these injustices.
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 6:14PM
Philip said...
I can tell you what's wrong with that poster: There is no shot of Jessica Simpson squeezing her f*cking tits together. That would have placated the MPAA.
In other news, there isn't one damn thing wrong with that poster. It's not like that's a picture of Muhammad on the front of it. Sheesh.
Reply
12-20-2007 @ 11:24AM
Matt said...
So children are allowed to see the somewhat disturbing Saw posters, but not this picture? I doubt this image would leave any impression on a child, which can't be said for the Saw posters.
Reply
12-20-2007 @ 12:20PM
Rick said...
@8: Couldn't have said it better myself.
Reply
12-20-2007 @ 11:06PM
Trent said...
I don't wanna be the bad guy here, but did any of you nice folks read the story? The headline was the draw, but the ol' bait and switch was used here. The article was about censoring the trailer, but, they made ya look. In other words, we all got sucked into a lie to read the damned thing. You'd be much less likely to read an article about a piece of the film itself being stamped out. Poster....woo hoo! True integrity, Mr. Walsh. Them deadlines sneak right up on ya, huh?
Reply
12-21-2007 @ 1:03AM
Patrick Walsh said...
Trent,
Did YOU read the original story? Go to Variety now, the link is still fully functional.
We at Cinematical, like every other film-related site on the web, get a lot of our news stories from Variety. If you click on the link in my piece it takes you to a Variety story about the censorship of the POSTER -- the story I was given to write up. Now Variety has issued a correction. They misreported the story. Your beef is with Variety, not with me. Questioning my integrity? Suggesting I made up a story to make some nonexistent "deadline?" Are you serious?
Reply