The Human Centipede 2 - Now Banned In The UK
Discussion
If you've seen The Human Centipede 1 you'll know the premise but here's the BBFC's statement detailing why they won't classify the 2nd Film...beware this statement by the BBFC is both spoilery and graphic in description:
The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the ‘human centipede'of the title. Although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at ‘18'.
This new work, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE), tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the ‘centipede' idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the ‘centipede' idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the ‘centipede' idea as the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy.
The principal focus of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE) is the sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims. Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede' being forced to defecate into one another's mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede'.
There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure. It is the Board's conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character's obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC added:
It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
The Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice.
It is the Board's view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above.
The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the ‘human centipede'of the title. Although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at ‘18'.
This new work, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE), tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the ‘centipede' idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the ‘centipede' idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the ‘centipede' idea as the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy.
The principal focus of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE) is the sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims. Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede' being forced to defecate into one another's mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede'.
There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure. It is the Board's conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character's obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC added:
It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
The Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice.
It is the Board's view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above.
This bit makes me laugh about the original.
"When approaching investors prior to filming, Six did not mention the mouth-to-anus aspect of the plot, fearing it would put off potential backers. The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete."
Budget €1.5 million
Gross revenue $252,207 (approx. €187,000)
I'm sure the director was not on their list for christmas cards that year
"When approaching investors prior to filming, Six did not mention the mouth-to-anus aspect of the plot, fearing it would put off potential backers. The financiers of The Human Centipede did not discover the full nature of the film until it was complete."
Budget €1.5 million
Gross revenue $252,207 (approx. €187,000)
I'm sure the director was not on their list for christmas cards that year
Jasandjules said:
Sorry, why does someone make this "film"??!?!
Surely no sane person wants to see it?!
There's a whole interesting debate to be had right there.Surely no sane person wants to see it?!
But I had it yesterday at length, elsewhere.
Instead, here's an interesting comment article -
article said:
Reading the description of The Human Centipede II, I can feel my anti-censorship inclinations shrivel up along with my appetite. According to the Guardian's summary, "in the sequel, a man becomes erotically obsessed with a DVD copy of the original film – in which the victims are surgically stitched together mouth to anus – and decides to recreate the idea". The film then "focuses on his fantasies and the torture he inflicts. One scene involves him wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the end of the centipede, having become aroused by the sight of his victims being forced to defecate into each others' mouths." Excuse me if I can't get my liberal urges up for coprophagia, coprophilia, extreme mutilation and sexual violence. All at the same time.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has banned it from all forms of release. My personal line is that the BBFC's role should be one of guidance not prohibition, except where scenes of unsimulated cruelty and violence are concerned. All the same, Human Centipede II sounds so obviously contrived to bait moral opinion, it's slightly gratifying to see it shut down. Director Tom Six wanted outrage, and he got so much of the stuff that the film will only be distributed in the UK as an illegal download. Yes, I am smirking a little bit.
The not-very-engaging original was an example of horror extremity in its own right, although its position as king of the nasties was quickly superceded by A Serbian Film, which came out about a month later. This fake-snuff odyssey throws out some of the vilest sexual violence (including a made-up genre called "newborn porn", which is what you'd imagine, and realised with blessed crapness) while the plot pretends to be condemnation of porn's degrading effects. Or maybe it's a political metaphor for how "governments rape us from the moment we're born", as the director says in an interview. Or maybe it's just a lazy excuse to string together a bunch of try-hard shock scenes.
Horror has acquired a reputation for increasing harshness over the last decade – a trend often linked to the Saw movies, with their taste for baroque murder and intense suffering of the victims. But horror connoisseur Sarah Dobbs reckons that's an unfair cultural burden to put on the films: "The term 'torture porn' implies that the films are inviting their audience to enjoy the torture, which I don't think is really the case. Arguably, those films actually have a pretty solid moral core – but why should that really matter? Films are films, and people enjoy different things."
And while Saw has had a huge influence – how could a series with a such an extraordinary record of profit fail to? – we're not by any means living in some kind of horror Sodom. Horror is an exploitation genre, a feverish stew where hacks and geniuses get their breaks thanks to a tradition of (relatively) cheap production and few creative barriers. Think anus-to-mouth sutures are indefensible? How about the dismemberment of a live turtle for the camera? Nothing done by Tom Six is as truly outrageous as the real cruelty seen in mondo films such as Cannibal Holocaust. And at the same time that horror fosters probable sociopaths, it's worth remembering that David Cronenberg and Peter Jackson both started out as makers of video nasties.
Horror's dedication to unsettling viewers makes it perfect for directors with a seething sense of what's underneath everyday life. A film like Martyrs (2009) is almost unwatchably cruel, but it's got more to say about violence, suffering and voyeurism than any number of flesh-rending blockbusters. You get extremes of intelligence and stupidity as well as extremes of unpleasantness in horror, and if we're happy to start banning stuff because of the latter, we might be losing a lot of stuff that falls into the former camp. Maybe my smirk is wavering.
Edited because I forgot how to format quotes ffs.The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has banned it from all forms of release. My personal line is that the BBFC's role should be one of guidance not prohibition, except where scenes of unsimulated cruelty and violence are concerned. All the same, Human Centipede II sounds so obviously contrived to bait moral opinion, it's slightly gratifying to see it shut down. Director Tom Six wanted outrage, and he got so much of the stuff that the film will only be distributed in the UK as an illegal download. Yes, I am smirking a little bit.
The not-very-engaging original was an example of horror extremity in its own right, although its position as king of the nasties was quickly superceded by A Serbian Film, which came out about a month later. This fake-snuff odyssey throws out some of the vilest sexual violence (including a made-up genre called "newborn porn", which is what you'd imagine, and realised with blessed crapness) while the plot pretends to be condemnation of porn's degrading effects. Or maybe it's a political metaphor for how "governments rape us from the moment we're born", as the director says in an interview. Or maybe it's just a lazy excuse to string together a bunch of try-hard shock scenes.
Horror has acquired a reputation for increasing harshness over the last decade – a trend often linked to the Saw movies, with their taste for baroque murder and intense suffering of the victims. But horror connoisseur Sarah Dobbs reckons that's an unfair cultural burden to put on the films: "The term 'torture porn' implies that the films are inviting their audience to enjoy the torture, which I don't think is really the case. Arguably, those films actually have a pretty solid moral core – but why should that really matter? Films are films, and people enjoy different things."
And while Saw has had a huge influence – how could a series with a such an extraordinary record of profit fail to? – we're not by any means living in some kind of horror Sodom. Horror is an exploitation genre, a feverish stew where hacks and geniuses get their breaks thanks to a tradition of (relatively) cheap production and few creative barriers. Think anus-to-mouth sutures are indefensible? How about the dismemberment of a live turtle for the camera? Nothing done by Tom Six is as truly outrageous as the real cruelty seen in mondo films such as Cannibal Holocaust. And at the same time that horror fosters probable sociopaths, it's worth remembering that David Cronenberg and Peter Jackson both started out as makers of video nasties.
Horror's dedication to unsettling viewers makes it perfect for directors with a seething sense of what's underneath everyday life. A film like Martyrs (2009) is almost unwatchably cruel, but it's got more to say about violence, suffering and voyeurism than any number of flesh-rending blockbusters. You get extremes of intelligence and stupidity as well as extremes of unpleasantness in horror, and if we're happy to start banning stuff because of the latter, we might be losing a lot of stuff that falls into the former camp. Maybe my smirk is wavering.
NDA said:
None. Not a single redeeming feature.
It's a very ordinary horror film. Not especially graphic, or clever.A couple of a the performances are decent for the genre, and it looks better than you might expect from its tiny budget.
The infamy outweighs the film though.
It was dull and annoying much more than it was challenging or disgusting.
im said:
The defacation thing was a first though. Haven't ever seen or heard of that in a mainstream film before.
The specifics of it, you mean? Not exactly in that way.But Salo featured enforced s
t-eating 35 years ago. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073650/I wonder how many people would consider Human Centipede "mainstream" anyway?
Zod said:
his is utter bks. Bad Taste, Brain Dead and Scanners are not remotely video nasties.
In the sense that their films weren't on the original DPP list of 30-odd films, you're correct.ks. Bad Taste, Brain Dead and Scanners are not remotely video nasties.But most people using the term "video nasties" don't mean that - and I don't believe this article means that either.
The list is here, btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#DPP_list
I have an interesting book about the whole thing. The DPP actions and the Bright Bill, etc.
I think the article is simply making the point that Jackson and Cronenberg started out producing violent non-mainstream films - Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Shivers etc - not mainstream viewing for most.
thebluebus said:
In the sense that their films weren't on the original DPP list of 30-odd films, you're correct.
But most people using the term "video nasties" don't mean that - and I don't believe this article means that either.
The list is here, btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#DPP_list
I have an interesting book about the whole thing. The DPP actions and the Bright Bill, etc.
I think the article is simply making the point that Jackson and Cronenberg started out producing violent non-mainstream films - Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Shivers etc - not mainstream viewing for most.
Jackson's early films are comedies, not horror films. The make up and gore is cheap and Jackson makes a virtue of its crapness for the sake of humour. The difference between Bad Taste and Human Centipede 2 is vast.But most people using the term "video nasties" don't mean that - and I don't believe this article means that either.
The list is here, btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#DPP_list
I have an interesting book about the whole thing. The DPP actions and the Bright Bill, etc.
I think the article is simply making the point that Jackson and Cronenberg started out producing violent non-mainstream films - Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Shivers etc - not mainstream viewing for most.
Zod said:
thebluebus said:
In the sense that their films weren't on the original DPP list of 30-odd films, you're correct.
But most people using the term "video nasties" don't mean that - and I don't believe this article means that either.
The list is here, btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#DPP_list
I have an interesting book about the whole thing. The DPP actions and the Bright Bill, etc.
I think the article is simply making the point that Jackson and Cronenberg started out producing violent non-mainstream films - Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Shivers etc - not mainstream viewing for most.
Jackson's early films are comedies, not horror films. The make up and gore is cheap and Jackson makes a virtue of its crapness for the sake of humour. The difference between Bad Taste and Human Centipede 2 is vast.But most people using the term "video nasties" don't mean that - and I don't believe this article means that either.
The list is here, btw - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_nasty#DPP_list
I have an interesting book about the whole thing. The DPP actions and the Bright Bill, etc.
I think the article is simply making the point that Jackson and Cronenberg started out producing violent non-mainstream films - Bad Taste, Meet The Feebles, Shivers etc - not mainstream viewing for most.
I think the point is valid to suggest that the slope of banning things you find unacceptable could find you slipping into banning things that other people find acceptable.
To you or I, the difference between HC2 and Bad Taste is vast, to the Daily Mail reader or romcom fan, the difference might be inconsequential.
We could be saying that eating poodle poo is more fun than eating mastiff poo, when other people just don't want to eat dog poo.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff