Warning: This article contains images that are slightly or completely NSFW. You have been warned.
A week ago the good folks at The Weinstein Company were told that their new poster for the upcoming film Sin City: A Dame To Kill For was a little too risque for public consumption. The one sheet, featuring Eva Green with nothing on but a sheer robe, a smile, and a revolver, managed to strike a nerve with the ever watchful Motion Picture Association of America, the non-elected body of governance and approval that rates films based on their content. Well some time has passed, and in a recent interview, Ms. Green has made some classy remarks on the whole situation.
In her interview with Vanity Fair, Eva Green politely addressed the controversy surrounding the poster bearing her barely clothed image. While she was polite, she point out the hypocrisy at play by stating:
I find it a bit odd. It seems like it’s all just publicity—a lot of noise for nothing. You have so many more violent things in the movie business and this is kind of soft. I’m not naked. It’s suggested."
The MPAA's crackdown on sexuality and profanity, but slightly blinder eye towards violence, has always been a subject that generates eyerolls, and the case of Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is no exception. In addition to rating the content of the movies themselves, the MPAA evaluates a film's promotional campaign, assigning an either red, yellow, or green band to a film's promotional materials. The poster, containing a less detailed but more revealing look at Eva Green's assets, was given a green band for general audience display. Meanwhile, the offending poster, which obscures detail and scale to a certain degree, has been given a formal reprimand.
So after all of the fuss and strife, what's The Weinstein Company to do with their film only a couple of months away from release, and their marketing campaign already in full swing? Well, obviously, a change will have to come, and it has in the form of a new version of the very poster that jostled some feelings on the MPAA's board. Thanks to the NY Post's Page Six, we have a look at the newly revised poster for Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, presented side by side with the original version. See if you can spot the difference.
The correct answer is, the opacity of her blouse has been increased, so as to hide the small hint of impropriety the MPAA has saved us from. It makes a huge difference, doesn't it? Without those watch dogs at the MPAA, we might have posters like this one for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo approved for official usage.
Wait a moment, that poster was approved for public usage, but Sin City: A Dame To Kill For needs to tone it down? Apparently, the version on display above is an example of "toning it down." The original poster for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo contained a smaller version of the release date, located around Rooney Mara's naval area and leaving her nude form unobstructed. When the controversy hit the fan, the only change that was made was making the release date bigger, and mostly obstructing the nudity on display. Again, big differences here.
Eva Green's body isn't a mystery to the movie going public, especially those who partook in this year's epic power fantasy 300: Rise Of An Empire. The original version of the poster, at least in my opinion, was just fine. It wasn't really showing anything off, and it was dark enough to be obscure. All the MPAA has done, as Ms. Green highlighted in her remarks, is give good publicity to a long standing foe of theirs. That "inappropriate" poster is probably adorning countless desktops, circulating though countless emails and message boards, and will probably pop up on eBay as an unofficial replica. So yeah, good show MPAA. You really taught them a lesson, didn't you?
Check out high-res versions of both Eva Green posters on the next page...