Censorship and double standards
I might not be the right person to comment on such things. After all, I'm coming from a country where sword of damocles hovers over artists' and journalists' head, where cutting scissors of censorship are sharper than Hattori Hanzo's sword. Despite these, let me just write this anecdote:
Recently, the poster of "The Road to Guantanamo" was rejected by MPAA on the ground that the sack over the man's head depicts torture, which wasn't appropriate for children to see. The film tells the true story of three inmates that are being held in Guantanamo Bay jail with no particular charges. After a mild dispute, the film was released with the new poster without the head and only with the handcuffed arms.
As is apparent, the picture is not violent (let alone shocking) compared to the certain merchandises in the market which are easily accessible to children. I can simply think of many movie posters clearly more provocative than this, rendering MPAA's decision a pure political one.
Let's remember publishing Mohammed's cartoons in Danish newspaper which was backed by other media under the gesture of freedom of speech. I'm neither an Arab lover nor a practicing muslim and I've always struggled to keep my distance and remain as an objective observer. But does distributing this poster make more irritation than those cartoons? Are today's children more susceptible to see a man's head in the sack (which is merely illustrating a true event) than 2 billion muslims see their prophet as a suicide bomber?
Recently, the poster of "The Road to Guantanamo" was rejected by MPAA on the ground that the sack over the man's head depicts torture, which wasn't appropriate for children to see. The film tells the true story of three inmates that are being held in Guantanamo Bay jail with no particular charges. After a mild dispute, the film was released with the new poster without the head and only with the handcuffed arms.
As is apparent, the picture is not violent (let alone shocking) compared to the certain merchandises in the market which are easily accessible to children. I can simply think of many movie posters clearly more provocative than this, rendering MPAA's decision a pure political one.
Let's remember publishing Mohammed's cartoons in Danish newspaper which was backed by other media under the gesture of freedom of speech. I'm neither an Arab lover nor a practicing muslim and I've always struggled to keep my distance and remain as an objective observer. But does distributing this poster make more irritation than those cartoons? Are today's children more susceptible to see a man's head in the sack (which is merely illustrating a true event) than 2 billion muslims see their prophet as a suicide bomber?
posted by MehdiMK | 9:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home