Mediaboss Marketing

One of the most popular arguments to despise horror films and related genres in their most violent and explicit incarnations is that they can inspire atrocities in real life. It's a thought as old as the films with Lon Chaney and remains in force to this day: just remember all the controversy generated by Joker and the Death Wish remake before their premieres.

If we talk about extreme measures against extreme films, what happened in the United Kingdom during the Margaret Tatcher years is fundamental. The explosion of the video market in the eighties changed the way of watching cinema forever. "Children can rewind and watch those scenes over and over again," says a character in Censor, a film set precisely in those years, when 72 movies on video, called video nasties, caused mass hysteria and harsh censorship.

Censor, the debut feature by British filmmaker Prano Bailey-Bond, joins the long tradition of cinema about cinema, this time from a very particular point of view: that of the censors. Enid (Niamh Algar) is responsible for deciding which images should be cut from some slasher/cannibal movie or, depending on the case, if they should be banned. Not all of her colleagues are as strict, one of them, for example, quotes Un chien andalou to defend a scene where someone's eye is gouged out, which Enid wants to remove.

But let's not get confused, she always tries to do her job in the best way, with responsibility and objectivity. It's evident that she doesn't like this type of cinema, usually made by men and with women as the main victims. She ironically calls them "masterpieces."This doesn't mean that she wants to censor everything, her seriousness allows her to differentiate between over-the-top gore and more realistic violence.

Enid can't overcome a trauma from her past: when she was a child, her sister Nina disappeared while they were strolling in a forest. Enid suffered amnesia, preventing her from contributing to the recapitulation of the events. Confronting the reality that developments in the case had stagnated, her parents decided to stop waiting for a miraculous happy ending, accepting that they would never see Nina again. When they receive the newly-issued death certificate, the parents took the opportunity to move on, even though Enid was unwilling to accept the terrible ending. Guilt still overwhelms the protagonist.

Censor explores that moment when fiction affects reality... at least in appearance. Although Enid is not a filmmaker, she's pointed out as one of the responsible people when the hysteria grows because the press connects the characteristics of a real crime with one of the horror films within the film: Deranged, notorious for a sequence in which a murderer eats the face of his victim, a scene approved by Enid and another colleague.

Likewise, the protagonist's harsh past increasingly controls her head. Reality reminds her of the tragedy: the killer supposedly inspired by Deranged declares to have amnesia and, in the midst of the scandal, she falls prey to guilt again. Fiction evokes her sister: another film within the film, Don't Go in the Church, appears to be directly based on Nina's disappearance. Not to mention when, playing detective, she discovers Asunder, a forbidden video nasty that shares a director with Dont Go in the Church andfeatures an actress that looks like her sister.

Censor creates its own mythology. It mitxes real movies for example, sequences from Abel Ferrara's The Driller Killer with fictional titles: Cannibal Carnage, a banned tape that video stores rent clandestinely (there's an extremely funny interaction between Enid and a clerk), derives from the Italian subgenre led by Cannibal Holocaust. These details make noticeablethe director's taste for genre cinema of that time. It's quite enjoyable.

Like other similar contemporary films Knife + Heart, to name one Censor draws on the genre cinema that it's referencing, specifically the giallo style. Dream sequences and saturated colors represent Enid's mind and her downward spiral on screen. Censor intersperses reality with the oneiric, bordering on the nightmarish, playing with the link between the real and the fictitious.

The film explores how her protagonist goes deeper and deeper into the world of video nasties (she meets a producer, "acts" in the sequel to Don't Go in the Church), as well as real-life violence and horror. Censor doesn't fall into nonsense; everything is linked to a personal trauma and her conviction that the creators of Dont Go in the Church are true criminals that leads to delirium.

Reality and fiction, even though they have an undeniable connection, are not the same. Censor remarks on it on several occasions, similar to the Canadian 1980 filmDeadline. We hear, for instance, that the amnesic killer didn't even know about the video nasty Deranged!

In its memorable and brutal climax, the separation is marked by the change in the aspect ratio of the images. At that point Enid no longer distinguishes. And when she finally seems to wake up from that "trance," she prefers fiction over the horrors of reality and imagines herself as a vengeful movie heroine.

She prefers the miraculously happy ending. She even believes that the demonization of video nasties worked, that they were all banned and consequently the evils of British society eradicated. Her last fantasy is a poignant and satirical comment that works for that time and today.

A version in Spanish of this review was also published at Cinema Inferno

Continue reading here:
Sundance 2021 Review: CENSOR, The Danger Of Confusing Fiction With Reality - ScreenAnarchy

That is all right. I had them on my list, too, a prominent public figure joked after learning that he had been blacklisted by a political opponent.

Who said this? Was it Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., after Simon and Schuster canceled his book deal because he challenged the Electoral College results from Pennsylvania, even though Democrats had similarly objected in 2001, 2005, and 2017?

Was it a Trump administration official responding to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs call to blacklist and deny them future employment?

Was it black conservative radio host Larry Elder after Hollywood censored his documentary Uncle Tom, whose IMDB rating of 8.9 surpasses 9 of the past 10 Oscar winners for Best Documentary?

How about someone responding to veteran journalist Katie Courics call to deprogram Trump supporters?

Or My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell, after Twitter banned him along with thousands of conservatives, including former President Donald Trump? Or Newmax reporter Emerald Robinsons response to CNNs call to cancel Newsmax?

No. That is all right. I had them on my list, too, was the response of David Low, a prominent British cartoonist, when he learned in 1945 that his name was one of 2,300 Britons on Adolf Hitlers blacklist. Had Hitler captured England, the Gestapo was to arrest those on the list.

No sector of English society or political opinion was spared from Hitlers British blacklist. The Gestapo targeted Jews in England, members of Parliament, executives and employees of more than 170 British firms, dozens of university professors, members of 400 social clubs and organizations, and journalists at 35 media outlets.

Censorship and blacklisting are the hallmarks of an unfree society. The Third Reich seized power in Germany in 1933 and immediately began controlling newspapers, radio, and films through censorship. Books were banned and burned.

Censorship was also a tactic used by Soviet Russia. When the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, one of their first acts was to issue the Decree on Press to ban articles critical of their authority. Based on real-life experiences with censorship and other horrors in communist Russia, George Orwell wrote his book 1984 in 1949 to warn the West against totalitarianism. Today Chinas Communist Party uses the Great Firewall to block news and online information from its citizens.

Todays speech punishments by Twitter, Facebook, Hollywood, corporations, and book publishers against Americans are obviously not equal to the mass casualty horrors of totalitarian governments. A direct comparison is not the point here. Its to point out that certain tools are hallmarks of repressive societies that a society that aspires to be free should not emulate, even faintly.

Censorship and blacklisting are serious unjust cultural acts that increasingly filter Americans into second-class citizens based on their political viewpoints. The censorship and blacklisting that we are seeing in America right now is viewpoint discrimination. Censorship and blacklisting need to be fully rejected by American society before they become accepted cultural norms that make even worse injustices likely and more possible.

It was censorship that gave birth to free-speech advocacy in America and fostered the conditions for our nations unique First Amendment, which legally protects unpopular speech. After his brother was thrown in jail for publishing a newspaper in 1722the new social media of the eraBenjamin Franklin wrote a series of articles under a fake name, Silence Dogood.He had to hide his identity because he didnt truly have free speech.

His wise words are fitting for todays threats: Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Censorship and blacklisting are narrowing Americans liberties and subduing the freeness of our nation today. We must hold the line and stop it now before the current climate of fear degrades into an even worse social and government climate in which previously unimagined restrictions become possible.

How can you help stop this vicious cycle from degrading further and refuse to do as you are told to do? Watch Larry Elders Uncle Tom. Sign up for updates from Hawleys new publisher (and one of mine), Regnery Publishing.

Use alternatives to Facebook, Twitter, and Google, such as Clouthub and DuckDuckGo. Encourage tolerance for different viewpoints at your workplace and hire conservatives. To counter Courics call to de-program, download, read, and share the 1776 Report. All these and more are strategies all of us can use to exercise our societys weakening free speech muscles.

More here:
Blacklisting And Censorship Are Hallmarks Of Repressive Societies - The Federalist

How about Ted Cruz slams Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey over censorship at Senate hearing USA TODAY

Despite repeatedcharges of anti-conservative bias from former President Donald Trump and other GOP critics, Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report out of New York University found.

Like previous research, False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives, concludes thatrather than censoring conservatives, social media platforms amplify their voices.

Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how they're treated on social media. They complain theyre censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction, said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, which released the report Monday.

Conservatives Twitter purge: Trump allies and Republican lawmakers lost thousands of followers in Twitter purge after Capitol riots

Censorship or conspiracy theory?Trump supporters say Facebook and Twitter censor them but conservatives still rule social

The report lands as a unifying argument is taking shape that major forces in American society big media, big government, big business are muzzling conservatives. That argument intensified after the major social media platforms suspended Trump out of fear he would incite violence following the U.S. Capitol attack.

There is a broad campaign going on from the right to argue that theyre being silenced or cast aside, and that spirit is what is helping to feed the extremism that we are seeing in our country right now, Barrett said. We cant just allow that to be a debating point. Its not legitimate. Its not supported by the facts.

Many groups across the political spectrum feel their opinions and perspectives are under siege whensocial media platforms moderate content, researchers say, but its difficult to make the case that these platforms are biased against any one group since the platforms disclose so little about how they decide what content is allowed and what is not.

Facebook, Twitter and Googles YouTube are not slanted against right-leaning users, a new report says.(Photo: LIONEL BONAVENTURE, AFP/Getty Images)

For their part, Facebook and Twitter say their platforms strike a balance between promoting free expression and removing hate, abuse and misinformation. They acknowledge making enforcement errors but insist their policies are applied fairly to everyone.

Conservative author Denise McAllister does not see it that way. And shes called on the social media platforms to stop moderating speech altogether.

This is a platform, right? You don't need to act like mama Twitter or mama Facebook. Just let people say what they are going to say, whether its true, false, whatever, she recently told USA TODAY. You have to just trust the people as individuals and not to try to impose power because you are going to do it inconsistently.

CEO Mark Zuckerberg said last week that Facebook would no longer recommend political and civic groups to users and would downplay politics in people's News Feeds.

A recent poll shows that majorities in both parties think political censorship is likely occurring on social media, but that belief is most prevalent on the political right.

Nine in 10 Republicans and independents who lean toward the Republican Party say its at least somewhat likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable, up slightly from 85% in 2018, according to an August report from the Pew Research Center.

CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg appears on a monitor as he testifies remotely during a congressional hearing to discuss reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act .(Photo: MICHAEL REYNOLDS, POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

The perception that social media platforms censor conservatives is regularly circulated by Fox News hosts, GOP lawmakers in congressional hearings and online pundits. That, in turn, has intensified GOP calls to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields social media companies from legal liability for what their users post and gives platforms immunity when moderating objectionable content.

Bipartisan support to restrain the vast power held by a handful of large corporations grew during the Trump administration and shows no signs of ebbing as Democrats retake the White House.

Social media platforms have been judged harshly by both parties for how they policed content over the past year, from the COVID-19 pandemic to election-related misinformation and disinformation.

Oversight board to review Trump ban: Facebook refers Donald Trump indefinite suspension after Capitol attack to oversight board which could overturn it

YouTube Trump ban:Google extends suspension of former President Trump's channel

Democrats, including Biden, say the social media platforms dont restrict or remove enough harmful content, particularly hate speech, extremism, hoaxes and falsehoods. They have called on companies to play a bigger and more responsible role in curating public debate.

Those on the right say these platforms have too much latitude to restrict and remove content and target conservatives based on their political beliefs.

Those grievances boiled over when Facebook, Twitter and YouTube suspended Trumps accounts, citing the risk that he would use his social media megaphone to incite more violence before the end of his term.

After being permanently suspended from Twitter, Trump accused the company of banning free speech in cahoots with the Democrats and Radical Left.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/02/01/censorship-conservatives-trump-facebook-twitter-youtube/4316155001/

Read the original post:
Do Facebook, Twitter and YouTube censor conservatives? Claims 'not supported by the facts,' new research says - USA TODAY

Researchers at New York University have released a new study that dispels the allegations made repeatedly by conservative lawmakers and members of the conservative media that Big Tech companies intentionally censor their viewpoints.

Why it matters: For years, Republicans have used unproven allegations of censorship as a threat to regulate tech companies or demonize them as enemies of conservatives.

Details: The report shows evidence that conservative politicians and media outlets received just as much, if not more, interaction on social platforms than their liberal counterparts.

By the numbers: The report points out how Trump dominated Biden in Facebook engagement from Sept. 3 to Nov. 3 of last year, with Trump having 87% of 307 million total interactions and Biden having only 13%.

Be smart: The mainstream press and tech companies have long tried to assure everyday consumers that these allegations are unsubstantiated, but conservatives have thus far been successful in planting that narrative.

The big picture: "Silencing" and censorship will be to the modern Republican Party what Big Government was in the '90s "an all-purpose target designed to inflame feelings of victimhood," Axios' Mike Allen noted last week.

The bottom line: The claim of anti-conservative animus [on the part of social media companies] is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it," the NYU researchers write.

Go deeper:

Visit link:
Study calls conservative claims of tech censorship "a form of disinformation" - Axios

Two social media influencers who managed to make the Hollywood sign read Hollyboob before being arrested on suspicion of trespassing Monday said they did so to challenge censorship on Instagram. One of them, they said, lost millions of followers and part of her livelihood when her accounts were shuttered for nudity.

That their stunt also raised awareness for breast cancer and brought smiles to faces around the world, they said, were bonuses.

Its awesome, said Julia Rose, 27, of L.A., whose Shagmag company brands itself as a modern rival to Playboy. All of it combined together has been really, really great.

Rose previously gained notoriety, along with a friend, for flashing her breasts during the World Series in 2019. For that stunt, she received a lifetime ban from Major League Baseball.

Rose said in an interview with The Times that she first conceptualized Mondays stunt last year after being warned about nudity on her personal and company Instagram accounts, which had about 6 million followers combined.

Rose said she knew she was pushing the boundaries of censorship on those accounts by featuring fellow influencers barely covering up, but she also felt Instagram and its parent company, Facebook, censored accounts unfairly, targeting influencers more than established brands such as Playboy.

Rose knew she couldnt get to the Hollywood sign and alter it alone, so she looked for someone wild enough to help, she said, and landed on friend and fellow influencer Jack Tenney, 26, whose adventure"-focused joogsquad channel on YouTube also touts millions of followers.

Everybody loves a good prank, Tenney said. Its always good to make people laugh and make people smile.

The pair said they attempted to get to the sign multiple times late last year but failed, in part because the two big B tarps they had created to cover the iconic signs W and D were too heavy.

Beginning in late December, Roses personal Instagram account and then her business account were disabled. A Facebook spokeswoman said Tuesday the company did not allow nudity on Instagram and removed Roses accounts for repeatedly breaking those rules.

After the accounts removal, Rose and Tenney decided to try once more to get to the sign and this time with a better plan.

Instead of two tarps, they would only bring one, for the W. Theyd achieve the second B by pulling a much smaller piece of material through the middle of the existing D.

They then got a double stroller to wheel the one tarp up an established trail that takes hikers above the sign, pretending to be husband and wife, Tenney said with a laugh. We just kind of went for it, knowing that we could get caught.

Two of Tenneys friends from Florida came along, as did two of Roses friends. At the top of the mountain, they skirted a fence and climbed down the hill. At the sign, five of them focused on getting the tarp over the W, using ropes to help lift it, and one got the material across the D.

Rose and Tenney estimated they were at the sign for 15 to 20 minutes, and no more than half an hour. They then hiked down the hill to Mulholland Highway, where they expected to be and were arrested, for misdemeanor trespassing. They were released Monday night.

Los Angeles Police Department officials said the group was not charged with vandalism because there was no damage to the sign but that they were breaking the law by trespassing and on terrain that is dangerous.

Mark Panatier, chairman of the Hollywood Sign Trust, which maintains the site in Griffith Park, said Monday that it was unfortunate that such an important icon for the city of L.A. is not being appreciated.

This is an icon thats there for visual reinforcement of the importance of Hollywood, not just for the city of L.A. but to the world, Panatier said. It needs to be upheld; it doesnt need to be demeaned.

Rose and Tenney took a different view. They said they hadnt hurt anyone and had received positive comments from people around the world who thought their efforts were hilarious, or who welcomed the focus on breast cancer.

They said they each would have a court hearing on June 3. Tenney said he hoped the judge took the prank as many on the internet had: as a harmless bit of fun that did some good along the way.

Follow this link:
Mad at Instagram, they decided to make it the 'Hollyboob' sign - Los Angeles Times