Posterwire.com is a movie poster weblog. From images of the latest Hollywood one-sheets to vintage movie posters, this film poster weblog hopes to offer a bit of insight into film key art.
One of the most popular promotions for the Saw movie franchise has been the annual Saw Halloween Blood Drive. This event seems to be a sly nod to the 1950s exploitation film era practice (pioneered by director William Castle) of warning the audience of the dangers of said horror film, complete with costumed medical personnel hired to appear at theaters to handle any audience medical emergencies that may arise from the “terror” depicted onscreen.
For the Saw and Saw II film releases, Lionsgate invoked their own image of medical personnel, in the form of a “Saw Nurse” appearing on the Halloween Saw Blood Drive poster and Saw II Blood Drive poster. Both promo posters were created in-house at Lionsgate, featuring the photography of Lionsgate President of Marketing Tim Palen. Keeping things in the studio family, Senior VP Erika Schimik appears as the nurse in both of Palen’s first two blood drive posters.
For the 2006 3rd Annual Saw 3 Blood Drive, the studio released a set of Saw nurse promotional posters featuring new photography by Tim Palen of several different “Saw Nurses” (including Erika Schimik making her third appearance). The five Saw III Nurse posters each feature various poses and groupings of gothic Saw nurses, ready to handle all the bloodletting needs.
Unlike the 1950s exploitation counterparts, these posters actually promoted something helpful: a real life blood drive that encourages fans to donate blood. For the 2004 1st Annual Saw Halloween Blood Drive, the blood drive collected 4,200 pints of blood. The 2005 2nd Annual Saw II Blood Drive garnered 10,000 liters of blood. The upcoming blood drive hopes to top the previous two in the amounts of blood “taken”.
Speaking of bloodletting, despite the good work of the annual Halloween promotion for blood donations, it seems the American Red Cross may not have appreciated the Saw nurses wearing the iconic (and trademarked by international treaty) Red Cross logo on their sexy uniforms. In response, Lionsgate has removed all the red crosses from the uniforms in a revised set of Saw III blood drive posters, with the creepy nurses no longer appearing to be working for the Red Cross, but still wanting your blood. For some reason, Lionsgate has a knack for creating banned Saw posters. Apparently having a movie poster banned or “censored” is a modern badge of honor.
The International Red Cross is fairly aggressive about stopping outside parties from using the red cross logo beyond use as a protection symbol established by the Geneva Convention. Some companies are allowed to use the red cross logo if their products existed before 1905, such as products produced by Johnson & Johnson. Since most people identify the logo as a universal symbol relating to medical care and aid, the red cross logo has appeared in everything from video games to lifeguard t-shirts — but in this modern age of intellectual property litigation, companies have been removing the red cross logo to avoid possible infringement:
A red cross symbol is not a generic symbol for first-aid, emergency, hospitals, healthcare or medical services, products or personnel. The red cross symbol is a trademark owned by the American Red Cross and protected by federal and state trademark law, unfair competition law and anti-dilution law, and it is also protected by federal criminal law (See 18 U.S.C. 706, 917). The American Red Cross vigorously pursues those who infringe American Red Cross trademarks.
Red cross logos aside, don’t forget to donate blood: “This Halloween, Give ‘Til It Hurts.”
Movie poster illustrator John Alvin (think Blade Runner and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial movie posters) will be making an appearance this weekend at his one-man art show at the ArtInsights gallery in Reston Virginia.
While the art gallery will not be highlighting John Alvin’s past movie poster illustrations, the show will feature his recent licensed movie illustrations work, which are part of Alvin’s effort to “re-branded himself as a ‘cinema artist’, creating studio-licensed, actor-approved prints drawn from popular films.” We can appreciate this rebranding, as the market for traditional movie poster illustrators doesn’t really exist anymore, which everyone seems to have an opinion about.
In the new documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated, filmmaker Kirby Dick takes a look at the MPAA and controversies surrounding the film ratings system. The documentary investigates why the mysterious MPAA film ratings board can be an endless source of frustration for filmmakers. From the film press release:
This Film Is Not Yet Rated asks whether Hollywood movies and independent films are rated equally for comparable content; whether sexual content in gay-themed movies are given harsher ratings penalties than their heterosexual counterparts; whether it makes sense that extreme violence is given an R rating while sexuality is banished to the cutting room floor; whether Hollywood studios receive detailed directions as to how to change an NC-17 film into an R while independent film producers are left guessing; and finally, whether keeping the raters and the rating process secret leave the MPAA entirely unaccountable for its decisions.
The IFC web site (the Independent Film Channel is releasing the documentary) is hosting two This Film Is Not Yet Rated movie posters. The two one-sheets each feature a naked torso (one male, one female) with the film title treatment (based on the design of an MPAA ratings logo) being branded into the subject’s skin. The IFC web site and promotional materials featured these copylines about their print campaign:
“Take a look at the ad they wouldn’t let us place.”
“See the poster they wouldn’t let you see only at ifc.com”
With headlines like that, one might assume the “they” in this case would be the MPAA, which approves all theatrical key art for films being rated. This movie poster approval process can result in one-sheets being banned, which we have covered several times in the past. In the case of what the IFC is calling their “uncensored” This Film Is Not Yet Rated movie posters, were the female branded and male branded versions of the one-sheet submitted to (and rejected by) the MPAA’s Advertising Administration?
The answer is no, these ads were never submitted to or censored by the MPAA. The “they” referenced above turns out to be various newspapers and media outlets around the country refusing to run the ads. According to Evan Shapiro, executive vice president and general manager of IFC:
The NY Times and The LA Times (among many others) both rejected our ads, because they said they were “vulgar”. Also, we had to alter the artwork for outdoor, as Clear Channel would not allow a clear shot of an ass.
However, Premiere Magazine and Time Out NY allowed the ads, as is, as did all of the alternative weekly publications, such as the Village Voice and the Boston Pheonix.
Originally This Film Is Not Yet Rated was given an NC-17 rating, meaning it could not play in many theatres around the country. After a failed ratings appeal to the MPAA’s CARA (Classification and Ratings Administration), the producers decided to release the film (natch) unrated. With the movie being unrated, the film key art is not subject to any approval by the MPAA, since the film and it’s advertising do not carry an MPAA rating.
This “ad they wouldn’t let us place” claim seems a bit misleading — while making statements like “the poster they wouldn’t let you see” and labeling these posters as “uncensored” may be technically true, wouldn’t many assume they were referring to the MPAA given the film’s subject matter? The LA Times refusing to run an ad featuring a bare female ass isn’t exactly the same thing as an unchecked governing body censoring content from the public.
A documentary film about problems with MPAA ratings system, which is being released unrated because of the very ratings system it criticizes, being marketed with “uncensored” movie posters “they wouldn’t let you see”… Is this what advertising executives refer to as branding?
