The Human Centipede II rejected by BBFC

[Ginyard]

A Serbian Film has scenes of child rape if I'm correct?

It has 'newborn porn' in it. I wondered what the film was when I saw it mentioned earlier in this thread so read its summary last night. Its one of those things I wish I could wipe from my mind, it sounds so fucking nasty and disturbing. If The Human Centipede II story is a dead rat in your bread bin, A Serbian Film is like waking up in that dead rat.

I skimmed through some viewers comments and noted that many people said its fundamentally a very good movie, good acting and direction. A great many of those also said its the most horrific thing they've ever watched and wish they hadn't. I know I couldn't stomach it. I'd rather watch a Jennifer Aniston 'comedy'.

[variant]

I wanted to see Human Centipede II as I quite enjoyed the first one believe it or not. I'm actually disappointed this has now turned out like this, not because it's been banned, but because the scenes that the BBFC object to just seem fucking stupid.

In the first one, it is clear that the scientist/surgeon is a fucking mentalist who hates humans and wants to create an experiment; a new species. To sexualise this is ridiculous - Tom Six has obviously got wrapped up in his own hype and tried to push every angle to the extreme. It's not enough for a copycat to make another centipede with more people or to make other 'improvements', this time round it has to be raped! In the arse!! With a cock wrapped in barbed wire!!!

It's just silly.

I'd rather watch a Jennifer Aniston 'comedy'.

And so is this.

[Wet Blanket]

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?

Well, I bought it for £15.99 from Waterstones when it came out about ten years ago and still dip into it.

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)

Ferman ummed and ahhd on the video release for a year or two because there'd been a recent outcry about violent videos (Jamie Bulger/ Child's Play 3 related?) I don't think it saw VHS release until Pulp Fiction was a big hit. There's some detail on that film and all the others they've fiddled with over the years here: http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies

If you're as sad as me you'll also want to download this year's annual report, which will detail the reasoning behind all the most controversial certificates from 2010.

[weekender]

I can't decide if I should watch either The Human Centipede or its sequel.  Not for any censorship reasons, just because of this thought process.

I've acquired a copy of the first one, and was considering whether or not to watch it tonight.

"I wonder how long it is"

I said to myself.

"The film, not the human centipede in the film"

I then said internally. 

Then I decided that my life was truly worthless for making what isn't even a pun, so I decided to end it*.

Censorship aside, are the films any good as horror films?  Maybe you should just comment on the first one, it appears that this second one probably isn't available yet.

_{*I have been made aware that some of you thought I genuinely flounced when I posted a 2 year old news story and got mocked.  To those people, you are fucking stupid shits but thanks for your concern.}

[AsparagusTrevor]

Censorship aside, are the films any good as horror films?  Maybe you should just comment on the first one, it appears that this second one probably isn't available yet.

The first film is badly acted, badly scripted, badly directed badness. Sometimes veers into so-bad-it's-good territory, but mostly plants its (six) feet firmly on the so-bad-it's-wank side.

[idunnosomename]

That's nothing, I thought to myself when reading the plot - "I wonder what happens at the end"

Then I realised the answer was probably "barb wire penis" however you interpret it

[dr_christian_troy]

There's a Skype chat coming up now on CaB Radio about censorship and the VHS era (although it may of course drift into silliness, but we'll see).

Just click on the active link underneath the 'CaB Radio Now Online' above the thread, and you should be able to listen through iTunes or whichever you fancy.

If you'd like to join in on the Skype, send me a PM.

[madhair60]

I wish I'd caught that, I'd love to have taken part.  Any chance of an mp3?

[Viero_Berlotti]

Censorship aside, are the films any good as horror films?

I've not seen the second one, but don't waste your time with the first one, it's one of those films where the trailer is better than the actual film. So just spend a couple of minutes watching the trailer. Job done.

[weekender]

Well, I just watched the first one (I had some ironing to do), and I found that I liked the main villain for his charm but thought that all the characters - him included - were all a bit stupid really.  If I was going to build a human centipede I bet I could do it much better.

[alan nagsworth]

Maybe the real issue is that there aren't enough truly sick muthaz in England to bring in the cinema revenue for a film like this. It's too soon - as a nation, we need gradually acclimatising to the degenerate filth that planet Earth has to offer. Personally, this film does not interest me in the slightest, because the concept of a man pushing his violent sexual fantasies to their extremes seems pretty fucking boring. At least in 'Visitor Q', behind the shit-dicked necrophilia, heroin abuse, son beating his mother and father paying for sex with his teenage daughter, there is an underlying tale of morality and family values that pieces together into something very heartwarming, even if in its sweetest moments it is still stomach-churning. An experiment in provocation is all well and good, but the means of achieving that can often be tedious, as seen in other such movies that have made it big over here, like 'Hostel' and the 'Saw' series.

Maybe the real issue is that we actually don't know what we want? Media fixations, scaremongering and tales of gruesome homicides and basement imprisonments still keep us completely transfixed, but when it's offered to us on a plate in the form of an artistic expression, we don't quite know what to do with it. Most will call it sick without even watching it, some will say "FUCK YEAH LOL" and then come out of a screening shell-shocked for a week, and only a small number will watch and say "yeah, fair play to 'im! He's just enjoying himself hurting those people, and I can relate to that in an objective/subjective [delete as appliccable] way!" This largely-repugnant attitude, however, probably has something to do with the fact that the Human Centipede films are predominantly a load of rubbish but we are too scared to admit it in case we don't look edgy enough, and that definitely is a fixation among a fair amount of people I've met who claim to be film buffs... but then I wouldn't know because I haven't seen The Human Centipede and I don't care to! OH THE IRONY

The internet exists as the perfect free gateway for that select market of perverse deviants, especially for places like the UK where the curiosity is rife but the attitude still veers towards "oh dear, not for me thanks", but it's a lot different in Japan. I read recently that the Mayor of Japan was fighting to ban adult/hentai manga from the shelves, and yet over there it has quite a large cultural impact, to the point where (correct me if I'm wrong) it's a very prominent and profitable market, and would remain so even if it was taken off the shelves. I'm not directly saying outright that the lack of sexual/violent crime in Japan is solely attributed to their daily dose of saccharin tentacle rape, but you've got to wonder just how the attitudes of nations are shifted one way or the other through generations of exposure/censorship to violent/depraved media and art.

Summary: I might just be talking out of my arse, but I bet there's someone out there who's willing to eat it.

[BritishHobo]

I wanted to see Human Centipede II as I quite enjoyed the first one believe it or not. I'm actually disappointed this has now turned out like this, not because it's been banned, but because the scenes that the BBFC object to just seem fucking stupid.

In the first one, it is clear that the scientist/surgeon is a fucking mentalist who hates humans and wants to create an experiment; a new species. To sexualise this is ridiculous - Tom Six has obviously got wrapped up in his own hype and tried to push every angle to the extreme. It's not enough for a copycat to make another centipede with more people or to make other 'improvements', this time round it has to be raped! In the arse!! With a cock wrapped in barbed wire!!!

It's just silly.

Was that not the point? The first one was just a ridiculous movie with a ridiculous premise that knew it was ridiculous (he attempts to train it to fetch his paper), which got so much publicity off of the mental idea, that every Tom, Dick and Harry were pondering 'Is this the death of horror? Is this movies gone too far?' when it was clearly just a silly thing that's nowhere near as graphic or violent as the Saw or Hostel movies - so in response Tom Six decided to create the most mental, depraved sequel he could. Not defending that ([here], though I do want to see it, expecting it to be as ridiculous as the first), but that's basically the point of the movie, right?

I guess he should have anticipated the ban, though it is a shame.

[Old Nehamkin]

Well, I just watched the first one (I had some ironing to do), and I found that I liked the main villain for his charm but thought that all the characters - him included - were all a bit stupid really.  If I was going to build a human centipede I bet I could do it much better.

There's only one way to find out!!

[Retinend]

So... has anyone somehow managed to watch this? I read the wikipedia plot synopsis and was made quite dizzy by it. I have no desire to watch it beginning to end, but when it's released on DVD available I'm sort of tempted to see one or two of the earlier scenes, just to sample the tone, and find out what those 2 damn "plot twists" are, mentioned on the same page.

[Noodle Lizard]

The Wikipedia synopsis is basically just taken from the BBFC report, so only really details two scenes.

It's coming out on October 7th in the states, I think.  I wouldn't watch it because I thought the first one was rubbish, but I will be watching it simply as an exercise in how utterly moronic banning a film in this day and age is.

[Retinend]

It's considerably more detailed than the BBFC report was. Several reviews are out, almost uniformly appalled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Centipede_2_(Full_Sequence)

[Noodle Lizard]

It's considerably more detailed than the BBFC report was. Several reviews are out, almost uniformly appalled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Centipede_2_(Full_Sequence)

Ah, that must have been updated recently.

It sounds like utter bollocks, but banning it was just silly, and only served to garner it tonnes of free publicity and the catchy tagline "Banned in ... " etc.  Films haven't been able to rely on that since the 80s.

[Retinend]

but it also relies on word-of-mouth, and would anyone really recommend this film? I think it's a bigger blow to ban it. The film is a famous name now, and would have sold on the strength of the first film's notoriety. Now that it's banned, British people will have to download it (for free) or go to the effort of importing if they want to see it. That's different to it ending up on a sale shelf somewhere and someone thinking "yeah why not". I think it'll probably end up denying Tom Six money, which I see as a thing fit for celebration.

I personally don't care about whether or not this decision symbolically damages free speech. To me there is nothing ignoble about making an exception to a principled rule; it merely shows a mature attitude to those principles which encompasses the complexity of moral decision. The consequence of the BBFC banning The Human Centipede 2 is that The Human Centipede 2 is unavailable for sale in the UK, and I'm happy about that. The BBFC have shown themselves to be immensely reasonable not just in the public announcement for this film, but in general since the late 1990s. I don't for a second take seriously the suggestion that this is 'slippery slope', being aware as I am of the character of the BBFC.

[Zetetic]

What do you think about the fact that film might not only be illegal to sell in the UK (and put on in cinemas and the like), but also actually be illegal to own (Obscene Publications Act and all that)?

Because I'm pretty much with you on not giving a shit about the lack of certification - although it'd be available for sale in certain licensed shops if it was up to me - but I'm much less comfortable with the illegality of ownership.

[Retinend]

Hm. If that's the letter of the law I wouldn't be keen on the idea, but then again it almost certainly would go unenforced, even for group viewings.

[Noodle Lizard]

That sounds far more like you saying "I don't like the sound of it, therefore I'm happy that it's banned".  The thing for me is that we really should be able to choose what entertainment we see, I don't really believe in the power of a small, select number of people who are somehow able to make that decision for us.  The BBFC should be there to make sure films are classified in order make sure films are appropriate for certain age groups, not to decide what a grown adult is allowed to see.

The BBFC have been pretty fair for the past two decades or so, although there was a new law brought in a couple of years ago which has caused them to be stricter again on "torture porn", which also included a ban on any image which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and "portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— (a) an act which threatens a person's life, (b) an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, (c) an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or (d) a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real."

That sounds like a "slippery slope" to me, since it covers many important films from the past which depict these things.  I could understand them restricting images which actually depict that kind of stuff, since the act is illegal, but faked?  Surely that's up to each individual.

Anyway, The Human Centipede is fake, and is obviously presented as such.  And it was filmed in England so presumably the act of simulating this stuff is all legal to do, it's all legal to film it ... why is it now illegal to show it?  I know the BBFC are touchy about voyeurism and violence because they (mistakenly) think it will cause people to become psychopathic voyeurs themselves, but to ban a film entirely because of it is really daft if it genuinely is in order to "protect us", since, with the internet and the first film's cult fanbase, people are definitely going to see it anyway, as well as a few people who will see it simply because of the fuss around its banning.  Look back at the "Video Nasty" era ... low-budget, virtually homemade films like The Evil Dead would likely never have been widely seen if it weren't for the widespread banning and censoring, and more recently, I would never have even heard of, let alone seen, the Japanese film Grotesque if it hadn't been for the BBFC banning it, the first film they'd banned in nearly two decades.  (The film was dreadful, by the way)

[Retinend]

It seems clear from Tom Six's statements and the contents of the film that he made this film purely to distress his audience. It's not entertainment or even a "film" from what I understand those words to mean.

But anyway, this argument isn't going to go anywhere because you don't believe that anything short of criminality can be unfit for depiction and sale as entertainment. I, on the other hand, view this as a single ruling that I can agree with or not. Admittedly I am "less free" in so far as I'm unable to easily obtain this film and watch it, and everyone else in Britain is "less free" in so far as they are unable to easily obtain this film and watch it. That's a sacrifice of freedom... but a mostly symbolic one... and on the other hand a piece of shit is denied some profit and young people in search for EXTREME gore will be less likely to be exposed to its malicious content. I think it should be harder to obtain than your average film. I see this exercise of Free Speech as a toss-up between positive and negative moral consequences. The positives are symbolic nothingness and the negatives are quite egregious.

I don't think that references to history help in this issue. Can you honestly call 'history repeats' on this very specific issue? Details do matter. It would take a real lack of moral confidence for me to defend this film out of fear for what our historical judges in the future might say about me. If it's a future where HC2 is seen as a watershed in cinema, I would feel no reverence to their consensus.

What I find most interesting, however, is the idea that no art can effect anyone negatively. Watching a film is an experience like anything else. People crow about the life-affirming, positive effects art has had on their life... it would seem paradoxical if no one suffered negative effects as a result of these experiences. I mean, take a trip to your favourite porn streaming site and see the ads for Simpsons-themed incest porn. Has the fact that there are considerable people who consume this irrelevant to the fact they watched a lot of The Simpsons? Has a TV show not affected their sexuality? Not to say that this is an outright negative consequence, but it's quite a dramatic effect of the art they've consumed.

[Zetetic]

I know the BBFC are touchy about voyeurism and violence because they (mistakenly) think it will cause people to become psychopathic voyeurs themselves

That's a empirical psychological claim on which there is very much no clear conclusion. At the very least the idea that media can cause short-term changes in emotion and behaviour is now firmly established even if the wider claims of more permanent changes to aggression in susceptible individuals remain less so.  (Edit: Hey! Here's an example for your Liberal political truths that don't actually match reality! bag, Retinend! It upsets me when gaming journalists become so obsessed by this viewpoint. I'll grant it's not helped by the mounds of bad science around, for and against the claim.)

However, this is all rather beside the point as far as I am concerned - the wider public wish for certain controls on distribution of media, and these can be made largely compatible with freedom of speech, although perhaps they can't entirely. Both are important - Ultimately even if we showed that media could be much more psychologically damaging, or emotively powerful, or whatever, than we'd previously thought, that would most likely not be good grounds - to my mind - for severely restricting freedom of expression.

Now, as regards the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, I think that we should be sensible in our interpretation - and what we expect of the judiciary in its interpretation - of the law even if we are pessimistic as regards its application otherwise. You've missed the major part of the ban (on possession) to which you refer - that the image must be pornographic. That is, that "one which must reasonably
be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal." This is important - I would guarantee it saves absolutely any one of the 'important films' which you hint at that might have otherwise fallen foul of the legislation. It's also clarified that images must be considered within the context that they are found.

The legislation is still problematic - whether or not the image is assessed as pornographic is defined as disconnected either to the avowed intention of the producer or the response of the possessor and falls entirely to the magistrates or jury. That subjective element I do find uncomfortable when it is applied both in a post-hoc fashion and to possession; I would absolutely get rid of that law, but then again I'd also get rid of the offences related to possession of child pornography.

However, as regards the BBFC - I'm fine with that sort of subjective requirement. As you note, people who want to get hold of these things will. So what is the BBFC refusing a certificate meant to achieve? It's meant to alter the scale and kind of distribution - we (by which I mean the majority of the population) don't want The Human Centipede II in our multiplexes, or being advertised on billboards or in our HMVs. I won't try to explore why, but I will say that I don't want it there either.

I would agree that it being illegal to sell (which is arguably more on the money than "show"[nb]Setting aside the possession offences, you probably could show it in the UK but not as a commercial or public activity.[/nb] is) it is not an appropriate reaction. But I don't have any trouble with massively restricting the manner in which it can be sold.



I agree absolutely with Retinend as regards his analysis of Tom Six's intentions. We seem to have reached the point where the BBFC largely only takes action against films whose only artistic statement is to do with how unpleasant one can make visual media - A Serbian Film (barring the crowbarred in narrative only available in interviews rather than the film itself), Grotesque and HCII all largely fall into this category, the latter two quite openly and explicitly on the part of the directors.

[Noodle Lizard]

If there are films designed solely to make people laugh, cry or be scared, why can't there be ones designed purely to shock?  I don't see how that makes it any less of a film, personally, just not a very good one/not to your tastes.

As much as I thought the first Human Centipede sucked, I can still respect Tom Six on a basic level - he managed to create a film with very little resources or experience which achieved widespread cult success, which is something I can always appreciate, even if I think the finished product is absolute rubbish.  I don't really know what he's done to warrant the title "piece of shit".

I'm not opposing this decision for any reason other than the fact that I believe an adult can decide what they watch - if you don't like the sound of it, don't watch it.  It's very, very simple.  I doubt anyone except extreme horror fans and some fans of the original would have really bothered to watch this anyway.

As for "no art can effect anyone negatively", I never said anything of the sort.  I said that watching films does not create psychopaths (and I was speaking specifically about voyeurism anyway), and I stand by that.  I honestly don't believe a film alone can cause anyone to do anything unless they were already on the brink of doing so, and if it hadn't been that film, it would have been a book or an advert.  Was anyone calling for Catcher In The Rye to be banned when it "caused" Mr. Chapman to kill Mr. Lennon?

Like Zetetic said, I wouldn't be bothered if the BBFC had wiped their hands of it and refused to classify it (eliminating its chance of UK cinema distribution in the process), but actively banning it is essentially telling us "We've decided that you are not allowed to watch this because we think you can't handle it".

As for the Obscene Publications Act pertaining to pornography, that's precisely my point - what constitutes "pornography" is always tricky.  But in this case, and with Grotesque (both of which were the first two films banned since the Obscene Publications Act, following a 17 year gap), they're designed to repulse and distress rather than arouse, right Retinend?  I'm sure there are some people who would find it arousing - just like there's a (fairly large) community of people who find Shrek arousing - but that doesn't make the films themselves pornographic.  And these people exist already, I don't see how withholding the film from everyone simply so this minority don't get their hands on it is of any use ... especially since they're definitely going to see it now anyway!

I ask Retinend - when you read the detailed synopsis of the film, you got images in your head, right?  In all probability, the images you saw were far worse and more extreme than the finished product will actually be.  Why, then, is it okay to read the details and create an image for yourself, but not to actually see the film?  Either the BBFC underestimate the imagination of the British public, or they're just ignoring the fact that anyone can conjure up far more extreme material in a nanosecond without needing actual images to give them a push.  Is it just the fact that when it's an actual image, it can be objectively viewed?  That doesn't seem like much justification to me.

[Noodle Lizard]

By the way, there are films available in the UK which I'm almost certain are far more obscene than HCII will be ... you know the reason why nobody knows about them?  Because they weren't banned!  Just allowed to slip quietly into the hands of the small number of people who enjoy watching that kind of stuff.

[The Boston Crab]

I don't see why they're so fixated on damage to the anus, breasts or genitals. This legislation seems determined to provoke.

Why is chopping a face off worse than cutting off a tit?

[Noodle Lizard]

I don't see why they're so fixated on damage to the anus, breasts or genitals. This legislation seems determined to provoke.

Why is chopping a face off worse than cutting off a tit?

You mean why is chopping a tit off worse than cutting off a face, surely?

[Zetetic]

Either the BBFC underestimate the imagination of the British public, or they're just ignoring the fact that anyone can conjure up far more extreme material in a nanosecond without needing actual images to give them a push.  Is it just the fact that when it's an actual image, it can be objectively viewed?  That doesn't seem like much justification to me.

Even if one subscribed to the view that the sole primary purpose of the BBFC is to do with safe-guarding individuals against psychological damage or provoking them into behaviour (which it certainly hasn't been for some time if it ever was), then it seems more than credible that viewing an image is quite different experience, which produces quite different effects, to imagining one.

[Noodle Lizard]

Even if one subscribed to the view that the sole primary purpose of the BBFC is to do with safe-guarding individuals against psychological damage or provoking them into behaviour (which it certainly hasn't been for some time if it ever was), then it seems more than credible that viewing an image is quite different experience, which produces quite different effects, to imagining one.

I'm not subscribing to that view at all, but isn't that what they claim to be doing when they ban films like this?  I made my opinion clear before:  I think they should be there solely to offer guidance as to what film is appropriate to which age group, and that's pretty much the only thing they've actually been useful for (intentionally, anyway).

My point with regard to imagination vs. (fake) actual image is that it's ideas and states of mind that drive people to commit murders etc., not mere images.  It's their brain, not the film itself, that causes them to do it.  Just like religion - when some lady kills her elderly next door neighbour with a crucifix and says she's doing God's work, you don't blame The Bible, do you?

A film like this could only possibly act as a mild catalyst for something like that, but so could a morning kid's TV show.  You can't make huge blanket decisions based on the "imagined" effects it could have on maybe one person.

I don't think that's really the reason, though, it seems far more likely that the BBFC just thought it was nasty and didn't have much artistic merit, and so decided to ban it - but I don't think it's their right to refuse it to an entire nation of adults on those grounds.  There are thousands of films I think have no artistic merit, and I find them offensive in my own way, but even if I had the power I wouldn't refuse people who want to see it their right to do so - they can make their own choices.

[Zetetic]

I think you're rather muddying the waters - but I appreciate many of your opponents have as well. That issue isn't to do with the creation of psychopaths (not credible), or the triggering of violent schizophrenics et al. (because trying to second-guess the delusional in this manner is a fool's game as you've noted) but the effect that violent media has on individuals that are not considered mentally ill in the first place.

This is remains an area of considerable uncertainty as the exact effects, but to claim that there is no change in behaviour following viewing violent media, that the violent media may not be construed a formal and effective cause of some individuals' future acts is to make a claim against a considerable body of evidence. True, these effects are generally more pronounced in some than others - there is an interaction of personality and the media, as one would expect - but a denial that violent media can have some effect, over some period, on some perfectly sane individuals, is foolish.

Personally, I don't think that this is particularly significant in the issue of the BBFC, while I think it is relevant in understanding why other legislation has been brought in.

Now, let's look at the BBFC's reasons for reject HCII. While one such reason was indeed the rejection that it might "harmful", per the terms of the Video Recording Act, it is clear that the overriding concern is public acceptability (which is important given what certification entails, even for DVDs alone; and this is why I would change the details of certification) and possible violation of the Obscene Publications Act.

Again, for Grotesque, both "harmful" and public acceptability are noted.

Based on the wording of the BBFC's statements, and their other decisions, I would contend that already it is public acceptability that is the overriding factor. Edit: And I wish to also emphasise that "public acceptability" really doesn't refer to Daily Mail readers or somesuch.