We should send complaints to
info@ifctv.com and by calling IFC Films - (646) 273-7213

Yeah! Let's all try to censor the poster for the movie about censorship. Awesome!

I'm not sure if it's necessary, but it's definitely symbolic of the MPAA's completely permissive attitude towards gratuitous violence and gore, contrasted with the Puritanical attitude towards the naked human form (the naked male form being the thing that freaks out this semi-secret society of jackasses). I guess two naked guys in an embrace would be the ultimate, brandable offense.

In any event, a lot of the details are contained in the Film Threat review.

tasteless.

p/s.: great point norbizness

Yeah! Let's all try to censor the poster for the movie about censorship. Awesome!

there's a difference between censorship and expressing displeasure. this isn't about writing letters to the FCC asking them to censure iFC for being behind this project... it's about contacting iFC and being like, "love the subject matter but check yourself on the objectifying advertising"...

puckalish - You are absolutely right. I have no idea how I failed to recognize that distinction this morning.

This is a bizarre, sick add. Branding of human beings has such awwefull connotations of slavery, death camps, etc.

Having this nice bare bottom branded is truely wrong, and a sick visual image that leaves one feeling ill if one ponders the larger picture.

It is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of having some respect for your fellow human being. Just because someone legally can do something, that does not make it right.

I agree that it is a noxious image. It's hard to see what they were thinking. Were they using some sort of convoluted concept and not really seeing the message the image presents? Or are they after controversial publicity?

In a weird way the image is sort of "cartoonish". Meaning that the violent aspect does not seem quite real. As if getting branded were some sort of kinky game.

I have to say that I am surprised at the number of woman hating slogans and pictures feministing manages to dig up. It really says something about the world we live in.

I'm disturbed that I first read the movie title as
"This film is not yet R-Rated".

Slapping the title like a gag across someone's mouth would be more appropriate, IMO.

Would you all have cared if it was a man getting branded? Also...

"I have to say that I am surprised at the number of woman hating slogans and pictures feministing manages to dig up. It really says something about the world we live in."
Yeah, it means that if you dig down far enough, you will always find something. Its a movie poster people, and unlike you, I fail to see how it is advertising a hatred of women. I merely see it as an odd and somewhat inventive way of showing the movies title. Calm down, folks.

Well, I am quite calm thank you. It just seems to me that pressing hot iron onto human flesh is bound to be an extremely painful experience. The practice of branding is one that slave owners have used, historically. The implication is that the woman is a piece of meat that is owned by someone. An extremely objectionable idea to most people.

There is plenty of packaging these days treating both men and women as sex objects. But when you take it to this violent extreme I think a very clear line has been crossed.

Perhaps the very slick and sanitized presentation of the image makes it seem less offensive than it actually is when you stop to think about it for half a second. It's a style vs. substance thing.

Would you all have cared if it was a man getting branded?

i think so, actually. everyone i know on here would have been disgusted with that being the case as well... but anyways, that argument is so tired... like dang... feministing wrote about both the boyfriend pillow and the girlfriend's lap pillow with equal disgust... so come off it...

Yeah, because nothing conveys a (?) message better than a woman + 3rd degree burns combo.

I'm sorry, I still see it as symbolic and central to the point of the movie (see previous comment). The branding is of the naked female form and the Puritanical revolt this sparks in the Scarlet Letter-like collection of MPAA hooded elders, not a specific female.

Interesting. I seem to have interpreted it differently from everyone else here. When I first saw it, the thought that immediately ran through my head was, "That's a pretty powerful accusation." In other words, I saw it as a *deliberately* noxious image, attributing the act of branding to the MPAA, not as an image intended to cast branding in a positive light.

Zed, I'm with you. It's a horrible, offensive image, but it's also right on point -- it's the MPAA doing the branding.

I see the poster as missing its point entirely for the sake of titillation. If the movie is about censorship, first of all it shouldn't be a female ass we're seeing-- there sure isn't a shortage of female nudity in movies these days. It should be about what we're NOT seeing, and that would be male nudity. A much more appropriate poster would depict a man with a big stop sign covering his nether regions.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but when I saw the poster, I saw a naked, sexually attractive woman being tortured.

So, what's it even trying to say? My guesses:

1) The woman stands for movies, and the brand shows that the rating system carries out a violent and hurtful labeling of movies.

2)The woman stands for "offensive" content, and the brand is the rating system decreeing what is and is not "offensive."

3)There are some sick fucks at the ad agency who think that naked, sexually attractive women being tortured counts as "provocative" content that will get people's attention and make them remember the title.

I had a friend whose (sarcastic) take on the ending of Thelma and Louise was "just what we need--more dead women." I guess I'd paraphrase and say "just what we need--more sexualized violence against women." No matter what the folks at the ad agency intended the image to represent, they can't get away from the fact that it will also, whether they want it to or not, represent:

*Sexualized violence against women.
*The sexualization of violence against women.
*Commodification of women's bodies ("brand recognition," anyone?).
*Ownership of women's bodies.
*Women's bodies as texts on which men (c'mon, we all know the hand holding the brand is male) are free to inscribe patriarchy.
*The de-humanization and objectification of women's bodies through visual dismemberment
*The idea that women like, or at least accept, sexualized violence (yes, I know it's not meant to be realistic, but the image still shows a woman getting third-degree burns and lying there demurely. Every image of an idea, realistic or not, reinforces the idea).
*women as (sexualized) slaves and prisoners.
*women as natural and socially acceptable victims (how far would they have gotten with a close up of a guy's balls about to be crushed with a Burdizzo labeled "MPAA?")

I could go on, but it all boils down to no matter how well-intentioned the movie or the ad agency is, they're still showing an image that re-inscribes all sorts of oppressive concepts and stereotypes.

Would it have been acceptable for them to show a guy wearing a T-shirt that said "MPAA" raping a naked, sexually attractive woman? That sure as hell would have been "provocative."

Okay, so probably the marketing wiz behind this subscribes to the Wildean trope that "it doesn't matter what they say, as long as they talk about us". And sure, there's ostensibly the connection of the image to the two big (obvious) censor targets - sex and violence. But the whole thing is just so damned lazy. It's the minimal effort image, the easy go-to when you can't be bothered to make a real statement.

What a great opportunity to create a memorable image, and they went instead with the picture that screams "Cinemax sexploitation flick". Sad, as well as sexist.

what i dont understand about the image is that the MPAA is being branded? initially, i saw "cow" instead of woman and inserted "the masses" into the space. under this deconstruction, i can find the image sort of humorous. i always chuckle a bit when the masses are made fun of. but, as i look further into the image, i see "MPAA" on the small of the woman's back, and i wonder if the woman is supposed to represent this organization? and, if so, why does the image lose it's humor? there are implications on top of implications here. if the woman represents the MPAA, then she must be a strong force....and therefore being put "in her place" by being branded?! (like, the MPAA is being put "in their places" by the release of this film). in an attempt to make some kind of statement, the image confounds itself.

For what it's worth, IFC did put out male and female versions of the poster. You can see the male version here. Unfortunately, the only one I've seen reproduced in the media is the female version - go figure. A big part of the film is the MPAA's aversion to gay themes, male nudity, and depictions of female pleasure.