The original was released last year, uncut, gathering popularity in the cult market for it’s grotesque nature and content (one has to at least appreciate the originality of the flick). So naturally it was kinda to be expected that the filmmakers were going to take the sequel to the next step, a step clearly too far for the BBFC.
Casting an eye over a statement from the BBFC, there are some particular eye catching sentences; including “he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis” and “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“…not that surprising that it was banned right?!
Read the full statement from The BBFC below, which
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 said: “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.
I’m not normally an advocate of film censorship, prefering to leave each person to make up their mind about what they do or do not want to watch. Having said that, the growth of torture porn and other films in recent years of increasing depravity are reaching a point where a line needs to be drawn. Just because you are physically able to portray something on screen does not accord it artistic merit and for once I am pleased to note the BBFC’s stance. Their full statement explains and justifies their decision and in this instance I agree with it. Mutilated, Degraded, Brutalised, Arousal, Sexual Pleasure – these are not words that should be found together. Quite why the BBFC drew the line with this but not A Serbian Film is a debate for another day. Let’s hope film-makers can be a little more creative and imaginative in their film-making, rather than turning a film-watching experience into an exercise in testing our tolerances and thresholds for unpleasantness.
But you haven’t seen the film, you’re just going on the BBFC’s description. How do you know it isn’t “creative and imaginative”?
Although I must acknowledge that without having seen the film I cannot comment on how these scenes play out in context, scenes of sandpaper-assisted masturbation and barbed-wire adorned rape do not sound creative and imaginative. They sound grotesquely unpleasant. I fully understand and normally line up with the argument that neither the BBFC not anyone else should tell us what we can or cannot watch and of course any argument along the lines of “how far is too far?” is fraught with subjectivism, but I still agree with the decision to refuse this film a certificate. No doubt this will make the film all the more notorious and appealing and it will become an undergound hit, but even if we don’t agree with where the BBFC draw the line, I am at least pleased to see that they are prepared to do so. No doubt this debate will rumble on. Interestingly the article on Empire’s site was pretty neutral, with most of the initial comments coming down in favour of the certificate refusal, whereas Total Film’s corresponding report was much more negative about the BBFC’s decision. What are your thoughts on this film in particular and the wider issue in general?
Maybe they are supposed to be grotesquely unpleasant and the effect of neutering them would actually make the scenes ‘worse’ – the BBFC cuts to I Spit on Your Grave made it worse in this respect.
I’m going to come back to it but how can you say you agree without having seen it. If it’s just based on the description then what about people consuming faeces, a tongue being sliced open and a running time filled with constant acts of sexual degradation and humiliation? Pasolini’s Salo has all that and more and has a dual pack from the BFI and is considered a significant work of art.Un-simulated acts are a different debate but it is worth noting that this is all simulated fiction. The BBFC are a classification board and should act as one. If a film that presents such a significant problem comes along and they fear that audiences may not be aware of what they are about to see then maybe a secondary rating is needed, a ‘hard 18’ if you will. They were more than happy to bend the goal posts for the 12A when it became obvious that the shifting zeitgeist in Hollywood was putting out stronger stuff for kids but the studios didn’t want to lose out on crucial revenue.The BBFCs attempts to effectively ban and censor fictional abuse recently is not what they are supposedly there for and they are surely just an annoyance to many audiences now rather than a helpful guide. I watched the complete uncensored cut of A Serbian Film, thanks to an open minded festival (my review is on HeyUGuys) and I will undoubtedly see Human Centipede 2 through similar means or via import. All the BBFC therefore will have done is just stitched up a distributor. A small British distributor who put out some really superb films. Bravo BBFC.
Maybe they are supposed to be grotesquely unpleasant and the effect of neutering them would actually make the scenes ‘worse’ – the BBFC cuts to I Spit on Your Grave made it worse in this respect.
I’m going to come back to it but how can you say you agree without having seen it. If it’s just based on the description then what about people consuming faeces, a tongue being sliced open and a running time filled with constant acts of sexual degradation and humiliation? Pasolini’s Salo has all that and more and has a dual pack from the BFI and is considered a significant work of art.Un-simulated acts are a different debate but it is worth noting that this is all simulated fiction. The BBFC are a classification board and should act as one. If a film that presents such a significant problem comes along and they fear that audiences may not be aware of what they are about to see then maybe a secondary rating is needed, a ‘hard 18’ if you will. They were more than happy to bend the goal posts for the 12A when it became obvious that the shifting zeitgeist in Hollywood was putting out stronger stuff for kids but the studios didn’t want to lose out on crucial revenue.The BBFCs attempts to effectively ban and censor fictional abuse recently is not what they are supposedly there for and they are surely just an annoyance to many audiences now rather than a helpful guide. I watched the complete uncensored cut of A Serbian Film, thanks to an open minded festival (my review is on HeyUGuys) and I will undoubtedly see Human Centipede 2 through similar means or via import. All the BBFC therefore will have done is just stitched up a distributor. A small British distributor who put out some really superb films. Bravo BBFC.
I don’t want to go around in circles. You are right that I can’t comment authoritatively on something I haven’t seen and perhaps the BBFC should focus on classification rather than censorship. Likewise the 12A certificate is clearly a commercial ploy intended to get more tickets sold for slightly tougher content. Maybe a “Hard 18” certificate would help, but help with what? I suppose it provides a guideline as to the extremity of the content, but does that just become a beacon rather than a warning?
I must also confess that my agreement in principle with the BBFC’s decision to refuse a certificate is coloured by the fact that I am not remotely interested in the film and have no desire to see it, even for curiosity value. Therefore I’m unlikely to react as strongly to their decision as I would if they refused a certificate to a film that I was actually interested in seeing. It is perhaps easier to adopt a position in principle when I have no personal interest one way or another. The British distributor missing out on revenue is a shame, but the BBFC’s guidelines are clear and so even for those that disagree with the decision, it surely cannot be a massive surprise. The distributor would have known what they had on their hands and must have had some initial sense of the BBFC’s likely response.
I am also mindful of the likely counter-productive effect of certificate refusal. Think back to The Last Temptation of Christ. Church and Christian groups up in arms, picketing cinemas, protests etc. Would have been better to ignore the film and let it go on its way. It may be the case that HC2 is a rubbish film, in which case let it have its certificate, its moment of notoriety and then everyone forgets about it and moves on. After all, apparently it’s just a film, not the end of western civilisation as we know it.
Those are probably some contradictory/schizophrenic observations, but I’m quite enjoying thrashing all of this out to be honest.