Samsung releases its S6 before Apple begins its process of hyping up its most recent Smartphone releaseMarch 23, 2015 2:24
Movie nudity: things could be worse
Nipslip? Short “inappropriate” scene of nudity on TV? Things could have been much worse. Like in-flight skin flick worse.
November 10, 2011 3:45 by p.deleon
In the aftermath of MBC Max’s nudity slip up, how many of you are going to watch ‘Into the Wild’ to find out exactly how raunchy is this film?
If you’re expecting questionable ladies of the night, ceaseless white powder snorting and incessant cursing, be prepared to be disappointed. It’s not that kind of movie.
Based on a true story, this 4-year-old movie is a literal journey to Alaska (Seriously. The lead character hitchhikes to the snow-capped mountains of the state that Sarah Palin would describe as Russia’s neighbour).
Directed and co-written by Hollywood actor Sean Penn, ‘Into the Wild’ is about a wealthy college jock who decided to give away his entire savings and hitchhike to Alaska after graduating. He meets colourful characters on his way to the Alaska…and unsurprisingly finds himself in the process.
Here’s the trailer: (Sorry to disappoint you but this one does not have what MBC Max now terms as ‘aforementioned’ scenes…y’know that ones with bare skin)
It’s quite inspiring isn’t it? It’s a little bit of a fantasy movie, something that some of us dream about doing, making that great big escape…into the wild.
And as with most true stories, it is often colourful. The movie IS rated “R” in the US for “bad language and some nudity” and judging by the story line, it will most likely allude to the character’s personal physical journey—one that one would assume does not happen in some homes and more generally in some countries where a lot of this is taboo.
As Ben Flanagan reports, there have been equal amounts of people who have called for a boycott and those who defend the Saudi TV network, mostly through twitter through the hashtag #stop2mbc
MBC Max has been comparatively quick in addressing the “inappropriate” scene that has raised eyebrows across Saudi. (It’s great to see a company moving quickly on these matters.)
The company has sent out a statement saying that they are conducting “an administrative investigation on the matter. And, although they have yet to draw conclusions, the company says potential culprits are the company’s recent digital (tapeless) transition and, that good old blame hog, human error.
There are a couple of things to point out here. First, the movie is the perfect poster child for discussions on Saudi censorship. Take away the grating unintelligible comments and the real issues start to surface on the fine line that TV in the Middle East has to thread. How much censorship is too much? How much leeway is enough to still deliver the same story and illustration across?
We say, let’s continue the discussion. In a country that censors everything from magazines to art work and yet on that ground houses are riddled with satellite dishes that catch international, uncensored TV channels, maybe it’s time to rehash the ground rules for network television to reflect the true sentiments of the audience. And if that means stauncher rules, then so be it. And let’s stick to that. But a revamp seems like it’s in order.
We’ll leave you with this parting stance: This incident is nothing compared to what others have to face. Low-cost airline RyanAir, for example, is considering the addition of skin flicks on their in-flight on-demand movie list. Ewww.
In an article in the Gawker, the company’s CEO Michael O’Leary defends his plans saying, “Hotels around the world have it, so why wouldn’t we?”
See? It could have been much, much worse.