The classification and censorship of movies is a much-debated issue. Many of the reasons for restrictions are also seen as boundary-breaking, and important in the evolution of art for society’s education. Some reasons are controversial, and often overlooked in similar big brand projects, as explored in the documentary, This Film Is Not Yet Rated (well worth a watch, by the way). Here at Media Match, we put together a list of some of our favorites – feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments…

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Director: D.W. Griffith
Starring: Lillian Gish, Mae Marsh, Henry B. Walthall
A silent piece depicting the relationship of families after the US Civil War, The Birth of a Nation was banned by dozens of cities and districts, including Chicago, Las Vegas, Denver, Pittsburgh, and the entire states of Ohio and West Virginia for it’s racial tones.

Scarface (1932)

Directors: Howard Hawks, Richard Rosson
Starring: Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morley
Based on the life of Al Capone, Scarface is often considered the original gangster classic. It’s plot and scenes of turf war between gangs and the police department’s pursuit of the criminals led to it being banned in five states due to ‘glorification of crime’.

Victim (1961)

Director: Basil Dearden
Starring: Dirk Bogarde, Sylvia Syms, Dennis Price
This British drama was banned in cities across the US for ‘language’, although the language in question is on the topic of homosexuality. The film is credited as helping to liberalize attitudes as well as instigating reform for out of date laws in Britain.

The Trip (1967)

Director: Roger Corman
Starring: Peter Fonda, Susan Strasberg, Bruce Dern
A television commercial director is in the middle of a life-crisis and decides to try LSD for the first time. Heavy drug references and various roles advocating it’s use caused the film to be banned in the UK for over 20 years.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Director: Stanley Kubrik
Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates
Technically, Clockwork wasn’t banned by any ratings board or governing body, but rather, was pulled from British distribution two months after release by Kubrick himself. Amid much speculation about inciting violence and youth gangs, Kubrik and his wife received threats and had protesters outside their home. For 27 years it remained difficult to see a copy within Britain, until it reappeared in cinemas following Kubrick’s death in 1999.

The Last House on The Left (1972)

Director: Wes Craven
Starring: Sandra Peabody, Lucy Grantham, David Hess
This hard-hitting was instantly banned in several countries because of the scenes of sadism and violence. In 2000 it was presented to the BBFC for a second time, and was again denied a rating. A cut version was avaiable in 2002, and the full uncut was finally released in 2008.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Director: Tobe Hooper
Starring: Marilyn Burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger
This horror flick was outright banned in a number of countries upon release, taking 25 years to break un-cut onto screens in the UK.

Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)

Director: Terry Jones
Starring: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palin
Another film that technically was ok’d by the ratings boards, but came across various local authority restrictions for it’s dealing with religious satire. The Python’s were labeled ‘blasphemous’ by protestors, and ‘Brian’ was made an outlaw in 39 local town councils (including some with no cinemas within their boundaries). Further resistance in other European countries resulted in a spin-off marketing campaign, “So funny it was banned in Norway!”

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Willem Dafoe, Harvey Keitel, Barbara Hershey
Greeted across America by protests and demonstrations, Scorsese also provoked county commissioners of Escambia County in Florida to pass an ordinance imposing a $500 fine and/or a 60-day jail term for showing Last Temptation (a US district judge reversed the ruling.) It was also banned in Israel, Turkey, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, the Philippines, and Singapore — and it remains banned in the last two countries to this day.

The Profit (2001)

Director: Peter N. Alexander
Starring: Eric Rath, Cliff Roca, Tom Luce
Billed as ‘The movie Scientology doesn’t want you to see’, The Profit is often seen as a parody of Scientology, borrowing events from the life of its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. After it’s premiere in Cannes, it’s distribution was blocked in the US until 2007 (although, since then it has also had separate distribution woes).

You can also watch a playlist of these trailers via our Media Match Youtube channel >http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE61A20CB3FD1204D

by Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

I’ve become quite a fan of stop-motion video production. It can be quite a test to use it creatively, and fluidly, and when it is done well I find the results inspiring and often amusing. Here are seven of my favourites that I have discovered, feel free to share your own in the comments.

“Stop Motion” – The Last Laugh
Directed by Eriq Wities, see more of his work at www.OpenContent.tv The Song used is “Chase” by the band Partyline.

“Human Tetris” – Not so Noisy
TETRIS played by real human-beings sitting in an auditorium. Directed by the Swiss artist Guillaume Reymond in November 2007.

“Human Skateboard” – Sneaux Shoes Video
A unique, if painful, skate video.

(more…)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Vevo launched last December with a Bono-lead star-studded party, and to much criticism from a reluctant online audience. Just half a year has passed, and the video website is now churning out some impressive numbers; the most recent comScore Video Metrix (April 2010) report shows that VEVO video viewership grew 11% to a whopping 43.58M unique viewers, edging ahead of such established online giants as Hulu, Facebook and CBS.

The original concept came from Universal Music Group, was developed and hosted by YouTube, with Google and Vevo sharing the advertising revenue. Vevo now hosts official music videos from three of the four major record labels; UMG, Sony Music Entertainment and EMI. These labels have established dedicated artist channels, and systematically removed much of the ‘home recorded’, similar, or bootleg content from Youtube. Warner Music Group have pulled much of their content from Youtube as of March 2009, but are yet to get into the Vevo deal.

Traditional music video may not be the main reason for their rapid growth. Although, adding hype to these by hosting world-premiers of highly-anticipated videos from the likes of Lady Gaga and Beyoncé (‘Telephone’ has 84m views and counting), Christina Aguilera’s and Rihanna have certainly helped. Providing exclusive access to live events such as MGMT’s performance at a “Live on Letterman” concert (below) has also accelerate viewings.

Vevo has also recently secured the exclusive rights to stream live the June 10 FIFA Word Cup Kick-Off Celebration Concert- a live, high definition global webcast. Immediately following the concert, you’ll be able to watch it on-demand anytime at the website as well as more exclusive and original programming from the artists performing. Vevo videos are currently only available in the US and Canada, but they do aim to launch outside North America this year.

This kind of official event and endorsement has helped edge Vevo ahead as a ‘proper’ video source, as opposed to Youtube’s swamp of grainy home recordings with poor audio, and that also helps them pitch to high-end advertisers and who are uncertain of such user-generated content and would instead be drawn to the likes of Hulu.

So, despite many people’s wariness of the bodies behind the venture, they seem to be pulling in huge numbers. Providing fresh content with value for consumers is the key to it all, and maybe the majors are starting to understand that. They still need to reach out and build relationships with respectable independent labels, to avoid it being something of a ‘big boys club’, and to also allow access to (and promotion for) the huge underground artists and bands that are always just about to blow up. But, maybe, Vevo is blossoming into a credible place for music video online.

Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

This week, Hewlett Packard announced the HP You on You project, a worldwide contest that ask you to showcase yourself creatively and share who you are on Youtube, without showing your face.

Using the new video creation tools on Youtube allows people of all skills and experience to enter, and to further inspire, HP are giving away more than $300,000 in cash and prizes, ranging from the HP Artists Edition Notebook, to $2,500 for various stage winners and semi-finalists, to be chosen by both Youtube and their viewers.

More information about the HP You on You project is also available at http://www.youtube.com/hp

That’s essentially it! Get out there and create! I’ve already found some great entries, and would love to view more, so please feel free to ‘Declare Your Story’ here on the Media Match blog. Leave a link for your fellow production job hunters in the comments

Lee Jarvis.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

The Olympics begin tomorrow in Beijing, and with that comes the inevitable question: should the athletes use this very public forum to deride China on its human rights violations (including jailing dissidents and violently suppressing protests), or should they remain silent?  It is an issue that has dogged these Olympics since it was announced that Beijing would host the games, and the fervor has only intensified as we’ve neared the starting date.  For the athletes, it’s a sensitive question: to some, the Olympics are a place of competition, the one venue where every country involved can unite in the quest for athletic glory; to others, though, it provides them with a chance to voice their opinions to countless millions, one they may never have again.  It’s a question every athlete will wrestle with, one that depends on which way his or her own moral compass swings.  And it’s a question that will play out every day, with every medal ceremony and interview, across television and computer screens around the world. 

The television aspect is nothing new.  While the Olympics have reached a worldwide audience in the past, this year will see a virtual TV saturation (NBC will provide an unprecedented 1,400 hours of coverage across six of its networks, according to the Associated Press – “more that all previous Summer Olympics combined”; it will also present 2,200 hours of live web coverage and 3,000 additional hours of clips available online).  But what truly makes this Olympics different is that the potential to reach people is even greater, and surpasses mere television exposure.  That’s because, since the last Olympics in 2004, we have seen the advent (and subsequent explosions in popularity) of sites like myspace, facebook, and, perhaps most importantly, YouTube.

For the first time ever, we will be given an almost real-time glimpse into the Olympics – everything from videos to blogs to photos, all created and uploaded instantly.  People at these games will shoot videos from the stands, on the streets, in hotels, and at restaurants…they will have their cameras and computers with them at all times (oftentimes both in one), and you can bet that everything they capture will be uploaded immediately to YouTube (or Liveleak, etc.).  Countless more people will be documenting their experiences on myspace or facebook, writing about what they’ve seen and heard.

The television coverage will be limited by its own rigidly structured design – and for all things sports, there’s no better place to turn.  But this means that the true heart of the games will be found online, on those sites that China and NBC can’t control.  There, we will see the real athletes, unbound and unprocessed.  Throughout their time in Beijing, they will be presented with a sea of people capturing their every move.  What’s more, the athletes themselves will have access to all of these sites; they will add messages to their myspace sites, or perhaps will upload their own videos – documenting everything from the opening day festivities, to the sidelines at the events, even their own medal ceremonies.  Simply put, we are looking at an extraordinary amount of access to this year’s games, the likes of which we’ve never seen before.

Which brings us back to the original question of just how much (if anything) the athletes should say about the way China conducts its affairs.  Because the reality is, they may be unable to avoid it.  If an athlete uses any of the above-mentioned media, they will be opening themselves to scrutiny.  Even a casual remark can be read as making some kind of statement – whether it’s a comment on the friendliness of the host country, or an expression of surprise at the seeming openness of a Communist regime.  The majority of what we will see on television will be about the sports… what we see in the other media will be about the people.  And if the athletes aren’t careful, they could be taking a stand whether they realize it or not.  Which, at the end of the day, might not be such a bad thing – after all, a heartfelt opinion is the best kind.

All of this, of course, will be a moot point if China decides to block access to YouTube and the like, as they did earlier this year during the Tibet protests.  But hey, if that happens, we still have almost 7,000 hours of NBC coverage to look forward to.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed

Go to YouTube and type in “Hilary Clinton”, and you get something along the lines of 96,000 videos; type in “Barack Obama”, and you get approximately 116,000.  Or try Google, where typing the name “John McCain” elicits about 38,000,000 hits.  Welcome to politics in the media age, where everything you need to know is at your fingertips – and even more that you don’t.

We live in a time where those running for the highest office in the country are under a greater, more intense form of scrutiny than ever before.  Each one of the videos or web pages mentioned above give us intimate access to the candidates, allowing us the freedom to leisurely examine their positions, or their public speaking methods, even their clothing or hairstyles.  It seems like we can never get enough… we gorge ourselves on every tidbit we can find, even though there is more information about these people than we could ever hope to read, hear, or see.

As humans, we’ve always had an insatiable need for knowledge; what we’re witnessing now, though, is something else.  It’s as if, by having so much, we’ve become conditioned to expect even more.  It’s not enough to be able to watch a video of Obama anytime we want… now, we can scrutinize his every word, to look for meaning both obvious and covert.  We can watch him frame by frame, in high definition television, looking for a blink or a facial tic that we can use to add meaning to his words – or to imply intent that isn’t really there.  It’s a form of perception-shaping, each according to his own needs or desires.  And then, when we’re done, we can log in to our favorite sites and post our newfound beliefs (or theories) for the whole world to read.

What does this mean to the election process?  One need only to look at Franklin Roosevelt for one answer.  Roosevelt contracted what was believed to be polio in 1921, resulting in his paralysis from the waist down.  Yet he was able to not only continue in public office, but to go on to win the presidency three times.  And throughout all of this, he convinced the American public that he was, if not exactly healthy, then at least getting better.  He did so by manipulating the media into seeing what he wanted it to see: he taught himself to walk using iron braces and a cane to appear vital; he used an extra-sturdy podium with which he could support himself for speeches in public; and he rarely allowed himself to be photographed in his wheelchair (which he used only in private).  He lied about the extent of his illness because he knew that it could not hinder him in serving the people.

Today, however, the line between mainstream media and independent ‘journalist’ has become severely blurred.  If Roosevelt were to try and manipulate the media now, he would in fact be manipulating us, the public at large.  And he would be vilified for it, for lying about something of such significance.  Today, the health of the most powerful man in the world is information that belongs to all of us.  The president cannot have a hangnail removed without the world knowing in advance… he gets a flu, and instantly the story flies around the world as markets tremble in anticipation.  No, chances are that Roosevelt wouldn’t even be nominated today – a candidate felled by a paralyzing illness might be considered a poor choice for whichever party he chose to represent.  Never mind qualifications… in the media age, it’s as much about how you look during your speech as it is what you say.

Which brings us back to McCain, who is questioned because people say he’s too old; or Obama, who comes across to some as a bit of an elitist; or Clinton, who at times is either too severe or too shrill or too mushy.  Thanks to an over-abundance of media outlets and devices, we have resorted to judging our candidates based on qualifications that, at times, have almost nothing to do with the office of the President and more to do with a popularity contest – we can watch a speech on You Tube, read the comments below, and get swept up in the discussions of everyday people debating the most mundane points.  It’s unnerving, to say the least.  And it’s also unnecessary.

Bring on the general election…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed