Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 5,559,182
  • Total Topics: 106,348
  • Online Today: 719
  • Online Ever: 3,311
  • (July 08, 2021, 03:14:41 AM)
Users Online
Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 04:40:30 AM

Login with username, password and session length

The Human Centipede II rejected by BBFC

Started by Subtle Mocking, June 06, 2011, 06:56:56 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kngen

It may be apocryphal but I remember reading that John Ford's adaptation of The Grapes of Wrath was banned under Stalin because it showed that even the poorest of Americans could afford to buy a car. Kinda missin' the point there, aintcha Joe?

Wet Blanket

I can see how a film like this can put the BBFC in a difficult position. It's an independent body, after all, entrusted by the government to classify or censor films on their behalf and therefore technically avoid a situation where films are subject to state censorship. This puts them in a precarious spot when it comes to exploitation pictures like Human Centipede 2, because it the board were to pass it and this caused a massive public outcry the government might decide it no longer has confidence in the BBFC and designate some MPs to act as censor. That's when we'd really see cuts and bans. 

I think when it comes to DVDs they're also under stricter legal obligations to cut material specified as objectionable in the post video-nasties Video Recordings Act. 

It's still legal to own or watch a film with no certificate, just not legal to distribute it. They've probably taken into account the fact that gore fans will just download it.

Funcrusher

Quote from: Wet Blanket on June 07, 2011, 09:53:48 AM
 

It's still legal to own or watch a film with no certificate, just not legal to distribute it.

Has this changed since the video nasties era, because people definitely did have videos seized and were prosecuted for owning banned titles?

Santa's Boyfriend

From Indonesia:

Quote1994: Schindler's List: a film that is sympathetic to the Jewish cause[57][58]

Wow.  Just... wow.

This one from Brazil also caught my attention:

QuoteBeyond Citizen Kane (1993) This film was censored[clarification needed (censured or censored?)] due to several lawsuits from the media giant TV Globo, and it is still not freely available to the public.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Citizen_Kane

Sounds like an interesting film.  Globo is presumably also affiliated to Globovision, the Venezuelan TV station that actively took part in the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez and his government.

EDIT: This one from Iraq also made me laugh out loud.

Quote1999: South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut was banned for its depiction of Saddam Hussein as the homosexual lover of Satan

Ginyard

Iraq is where they should have set the second Human Centipede film. Some GIs are captured and linked by a crazy terrorist doctor. Get a few snaps to send over in retaliation for the arse mountain. Get them to wriggle through a few hoops before burying them alive under a ton of baklavas.

Somebody get me a fucking pen!

Wet Blanket

Quote from: Funcrusher on June 07, 2011, 09:59:05 AM
Has this changed since the video nasties era, because people definitely did have videos seized and were prosecuted for owning banned titles?

There used to be an FAQ on the BBFC website clarifying this: I think as long as the material isn't 'obscene' in the legal sense you're okay as long as you don't plan on selling copies or broadcasting it.

A few people got their collar felt on the basis that titles like Cannibal Apocalypse were 'obscene' but I don't think anybody was successfully prosecuted.  Out of the whole ordeal I think one poor video shop owner was sent down for distribution. Considering the climate has mellowed substantially since then I 
doubt that any horror movie would land you in stir.

If you're interested in this sort of thing I highly recommend the book See No Evil by David Kerekes and David Slater, which is really the definitive guide to both the content and context of the video nasties... and Video Nasties: the Definitive Guide DVD, which goes into depth about some of the legal repercussions of the whole sorry affair.



Uncle TechTip

China:

"2011: Back to the Future, Back to the Future 2. and Back to the Future 3, The Promise (2005 film), Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, The Time Traveller's Wife (film), 12 Monkeys, The Terminator, Star Trek (2009 Film), The Butterfly Effect, Donnie Darko, The Forbidden Kingdom, Groundhog Day, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film), Hot Tub Time Machine, The Lake House, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. All banned as of April 2011 under new legislation banning the depiction of time travel in films and television programmes. Source: http://www.listal.com/list/time-travel-movies-banned-china#comments and Series 4 Episode 5 of Russell Howard's Good News."

I got a bit excited then because I thought series 4 episode 5 of Russell Howard's Good News was banned for some reason. Still, that time travel eh - like the old saying goes, a population is only ever three temporal distortions away from revolution.

Aso, they banned Avatar in case the obvious allegory about the forced removal of people caused the world's biggest penny to drop.

El Unicornio, mang


Ignatius_S

Quote from: SOTS on June 06, 2011, 11:31:01 PM
No-one I know that has heard of the film found out about it via regular advertising, nor did anyone watch it by actually obtaining a DVD copy. It's all completely online and word-of-mouth. Most of the people that are going to watch this one are people that watched the first one and already know about the sequel.....
I think you're so right, the first film did become known through word of mouth – however, I think it's fair to say that is an important part of 'regular' advertising for horror films, particularly low-budget ones.

The majority of horror films are promoted via specialist sites and festival screenings. Although I only look at horror sites now and then, I heard about The Human Centipede and A Serbian Film (just two examples) in this way and it was quite a while before I heard about them through other methods – it's very much horror fans that are the intended market.

Horror has long since been supposed to be the genre that a film is most likely to recoup its cost and there's a very large, strong audience out there – one reason why there are so many low-budget horror films. According to The Numbers website, The Human Centipede has made a little over $1.93 million in DVD sales – that not might sound much, but the film cost 1.5 million Euros to make.

Quote from: Subtle Mocking on June 06, 2011, 08:22:46 PM
It'll probably go to Saw lengths of milking. The Human Train? The Human Nile? The Great Human Wall of China?
The director said from the beginning - well before, the film was first screened in the UK - that it's going to be a trilogy and has talked about these plans.

Big Jack McBastard

Quote from: Uncle TechTip on June 07, 2011, 11:08:11 AM
China:
new legislation banning the depiction of time travel in films and television programmes

The fuck?.. what's the justification there? I'm intrigued.

Santa's Boyfriend

I guess the third film will be about fans of the first film sewing the censors together for refusing to release the second one...  and each one getting increasingly meta from there.

Santa's Boyfriend

The director has responded to Empire Magazine (notice the Morris reference at the end of the article):

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31162

QuoteWe emailed Tom Six for a response to the BBFC's decision and received the following quote, which we present here in full. The censoring of the F-word, ironically, is Six's.

"Thank you BBFC for putting spoilers of my movie on your website and thank you for banning my film in this exceptional way. Apparently I made an horrific horror-film, but shouldn't a good horror film be horrific? My dear people it is a f****cking MOVIE. It is all fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art. Give people their own choice to watch it or not. If people can't handle or like my movies they just don't watch them. If people like my movies they have to be able to see it any time, anywhere also in the UK."

So there you have it. What do you think: saving us all from ourselves or censorship gone too far? Or do you even care that we won't be able to see this particular opus? Speak your brains below...

wearyworld

In the words of Cronenberg:

Quote from: David CronenbergCertain images are proscribed – you must not see them – because 'the images themselves are the actions.' And that confusion is psychosis, I mean medically speaking if you cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality you're psychotic, and that puts many of the censors in that category.

They've screwed up just as they did with A Serbian Film. I laughed out loud at their assertion that the film is likely to cause 'real [...] harm.' Have any of them studied psychology, or at least looked into the reams of studies available? The idea that ordinary, functioning individuals can be psychologically 'harmed,' as if flicking a switch, by cinematic imagery is both antiquated and scarily draconian.

This suggests that if the BBFC were in charge of passing or censoring books, they would – still – ban Lolita, because the continually sexualised portrayal of a child and Humbert's sexual gratification are at the forefront. I assume that some readers of Lolita will be sexually attracted to prepubescent girls. I also assume that those who are not, who read it because it's Nabokov, will not be magically 'harmed' and turned into sexual deviants. You could also get into the whole debate about whether people who have a predilection for, in the case of Human Centipede 2, er, surgically sticking people together and raping them, such a film will cause 'harm' or in fact provide a non-violent, fantasy world of release.

SavageHedgehog

I don't know about that but I'd have liked to have been able to see it, personally[nb]I don't download films[/nb]. I'm sure it's nothing great, hell if it's as unpleasant as it sounds I might not have even been able to finish it, but as a horror fan I do think these films are worth a look because of what they represent in this particular time and place in the genre's history. I haven't seen the film and I've no real axe to grind with the contemporary BBFC, this wasn't on my "must watch list" or anything, so I'm not going to get up in arms about it, but there are somethings they're saying about the film which I'm not sure can truly be decided by anyone but the viewer, I don't know.


Fabian Thomsett

How's that for free publicity?

I reckon this has been banned, partly, to avert "BAN THIS SICK FILM!!!!!" type headlines. Personally, I don't need total strangers to tell me what I should or shouldn't see.

Santa's Boyfriend

Quote from: wearyworld on June 07, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
Have any of them studied psychology, or at least looked into the reams of studies available?

Most of them come from psychology or social care related backgrounds, so yes.  It's in the US where the MPAA are deliberately made up with "ordinary americans" without any kind of expertise in the field.

Zetetic

#46
Quote from: wearyworld on June 07, 2011, 07:16:18 PMThey've screwed up just as they did with A Serbian Film. I laughed out loud at their assertion that the film is likely to cause 'real [...] harm.' Have any of them studied psychology, or at least looked into the reams of studies available? The idea that ordinary, functioning individuals can be psychologically 'harmed,' as if flicking a switch, by cinematic imagery is both antiquated and scarily draconian.
I used to believe this. I don't now, and I didn't like having to climb down from this position.
While I believe that the research if often towards a particular end, there's an awful lot of it, often very carefully inspected precisely because of the implications of the material.

Abstract from the relatively sedate and measured report in The Lancet, 2005, with an emphasis on public-health:
QuoteThere is consistent evidence that violent imagery in television, film and video, and computer games has substantial short-term effects on arousal, thoughts, and emotions, increasing the likelihood of aggressive or fearful behaviour in younger children, especially in boys. The evidence becomes inconsistent when considering older children and teenagers, and long-term outcomes for all ages. The multifactorial nature of aggression is emphasised, together with the methodological difficulties of showing causation. Nevertheless, a small but significant association is shown in the research, with an effect size that has a substantial effect on public health.
Browne, K.D. & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. (2005) The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: a public-health approach, The Lancet, 9460

That's one of the more measured, but also most intelligent reviews I've read. Ones that are more simply focused on aggression quite often found (short-term, I must admit) behavioural effects from viewing violent media; importantly, I'll note that this is often in interaction with personality variables of the viewer. Now, sure, it might not be effecting your behaviour, but there are plenty of people who it most likely will do. And, yes, they easily fall under 'ordinary' and 'functioning'. Sure, it might not also act as a switch, but that's obviously a ridiculous extreme.

The idea isn't draconian. It's psychological claim, that's all, what you do on the basis of a belief in it might be draconian. It's not antiquated either - the effects of violent media remains an active and respectable field; many questions remain open. (Edit: You're right to bring up the question of 'release', notably investigated at the sociological level with pornography and sexual violence.)

However, even if we conclude that there is an effect, we still have to balance those outcomes against freedom of speech. Like, uh, lots of things, just like in most Western countries.



Personally, I'd rather see greater use of the R18 certificate. I can accept a society deciding that they don't want certain media to be widely marketed, trivially available and so forth, even if I don't like the idea of absolute censorship.

I do wonder about the psychological outcomes - there's certainly evidence that, intuitively, those likely to show aggressive behavioural effects following viewing violent media are also likely to seek it out. From that point of view, perhaps there's little utility in such an approach.

(Of course, with the internet, that's basically the position that we're already in.)

(Edit: Oh, Cronenberg's full of shit. The idea that there's no viewpoint taking, no self-other merging in 'ordinary' human beings is, I would have thought, patently ridiculous on the face of it. The research, regarding film and TV, isn't copious, but it's not on his side. The idea that one has to be 'medically' 'psychotic' is... well, it's ignorant at worst, and presumptive at best.)

lipsink

Quote from: Wet Blanket on June 07, 2011, 10:55:50 AM

If you're interested in this sort of thing I highly recommend the book See No Evil by David Kerekes and David Slater, which is really the definitive guide to both the content and context of the video nasties

I'm tempted to get this but would you say it's worth £20 which seems to be cheapest it's going for on Amazon?

Zetetic

Quote from: wearyworld on June 07, 2011, 07:16:18 PM
This suggests that if the BBFC were in charge of passing or censoring books, they would – still – ban Lolita, because the continually sexualised portrayal of a child and Humbert's sexual gratification are at the forefront. I assume that some readers of Lolita will be sexually attracted to prepubescent girls.
It's worth noting that the issues regarding Lolita in Europe can be largely placed at a lack of agencies whose job it was to consider such material. Arguably, the bans that were imposed were largely political responses to the hysteria of a small number of newspaper editors.

One may object to the ideal of the BBFC, but it's remarkable in its consistency. For one thing they try incredibly hard to ascribe some kind of artistic motive to the films presented to them, and it's notably relatively rare for them not to succeed. Of course, you may find this flawed - I, as someone who's prepared to accept that if someone 'genuinely' calls something 'art', then it's art certainly recognise that this approach is terribly difficult to maintain.

Nevertheless, it's ridiculous, based on their actual recent history of denials and on their constant attempt to find any kind of artistic justification, to suggest that the BBFC wouldn't pass Lolita were it to fall under their remit.

Something that hasn't been brought up, (unless I've missed it) - part of the reason why the BBFC denied the film a certificate is that they feared that it would fall foul of obscenity laws. Those, in contrast in many ways to the situation with the BBFC (and local council certification), are horribly flawed, regardless of whether you agree with their intention or not.

Artemis

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand I think the BBFC have just handed the producers a killer tagline, and increased curiosity among an audience that might otherwise have read the almost inevitably bad reviews and steered clear (those of the public who were always going to watch it will continue to do so).

On the other hand, the BBFC are obviously not acting 'unlawfully' in any sense. The idea of shielding the public from material that might do more harm than good is condescending and outdated, but if you view it in terms of those younger, more vulnerable people who might otherwise have watched the kind of thing they've described and let it affect them, as it certainly would, maybe there's an argument for the decision?

Depressed Beyond Tables

Is the barbed wire around the cock thing popular?

I'm not sure I have the hang of it.

El Unicornio, mang

I still remember the days of almost unwatchable 4th-generation Clockwork Orange and Exorcist video tapes being passed around the playground when I was at school. Kids these days can get their banned naughty film fixes, in HD quality,  in about an hour off torrent sites these days, don't know they're born!

Depressed Beyond Tables

You can still get the 4th generation video tapes in most playgrounds.

NoSleep

Clockwork Orange was "banned" by the director of the film; not by the BBFC. Was the Exorcist banned? I remember it being in the cinemas. Texas Chainsaw Massacre could only be seen in London (under a 'GLC' license, I remember in Time Out) and a few films (like Salo) could only be seen by members of private cinemas/societies.

El Unicornio, mang

The Exorcist wasn't banned, basically they just never submitted it for a rating (as it was at the height of the video nasties thing, which had caused problems for the studio behind Evil Dead) until 1999.

Do I remember correctly that Reservoir Dogs took a while to get a home video release? It came out in cinemas in 1992 and I remember getting it in about 95 and it had just been released on video (I think)

dr_christian_troy

I'm hosting a VHS Night on CaB Radio tomorrow evening, covering various aspects of the VHS era - if anyone fancies Skyping in to discuss censorship etc, send me a PM. Memories of going to your local rental shop, anything like that, put it into mp3 format and send me a link - I'd be most grateful.

Funcrusher

Quote from: dr_christian_troy on June 08, 2011, 11:33:18 AM
I'm hosting a VHS Night on CaB Radio tomorrow evening, covering various aspects of the VHS era - if anyone fancies Skyping in to discuss censorship etc, send me a PM. Memories of going to your local rental shop, anything like that, put it into mp3 format and send me a link - I'd be most grateful.


Have you seen this place?

http://www.pre-cert.co.uk/index.php?s=2ed3239885037f317b5a465682ec64ba

dr_christian_troy

Quote from: Funcrusher on June 08, 2011, 12:00:50 PM

Have you seen this place?

http://www.pre-cert.co.uk/index.php?s=2ed3239885037f317b5a465682ec64ba

Indeed, ta! Excellent site. I have the debate by Channel 4 from their Censorship season years ago on VHS, would love to up the audio of it to play tomorrow but don't really have the resources.

It's a tough shout on this one I reckon. I wouldn't watch it, and I would worry about the psychological make-up of someone who did, but it is still just a film.

Part of me does wonder where it ends though. A Serbian Film has scenes of child rape if I'm correct? I mean.. what's the point of even having a board that can choose to ban things like this, when all that ever happens is that people just shout "IT'S ONLY A FILM" no matter the content, and the barriers are broken for yet more gratuitously disgusting films to come out. Surely they should just be able to slap an X rating on stuff, get it banned from cinemas and public advertising, but just have it available for sale in certain outlets? Clearly banning anything doesn't work.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: dr_christian_troy on June 08, 2011, 12:05:21 PM
Indeed, ta! Excellent site. I have the debate by Channel 4 from their Censorship season years ago on VHS, would love to up the audio of it to play tomorrow but don't really have the resources.
Is it available via torrent anywhere? If so, just download it and rip the audio, via audacity or something like that.