Last week there was much fuss and furore over the BBFC refusing a certificate to The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). The board said that as the entire premise is based on graphic, sexually sadistic violence, it had to be banned outright, rather than going down the usual routes of ordering cuts. Its very unusual these days for a movie to be refused a certificate in the UK, so the BBFC went to great lengths to justify their decision (you can read exactly what they had to say here).
At the time, the movies UK distributor was oddly silent, offering no comment at first, and then releasing a short statement a couple of days later saying they intended to appeal. However now that theyve had time to ponder their position, theyve issued a full response.
Its an interesting statement, questioning notions of censorship and personal freedom, and even wondering whether the level of detail in the BBFCs justification has prejudiced any appeal they might want to make. Many commented that lengthy release the BBFC sent out was very unusual and a little extreme, even suggesting the movie could break the Obscene Publication Act.
Heres what the distributor had to say:
Within the last week, the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) announced that it had rejected and was unable to classify for release on DVD, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence).
Bounty Films, and its UK distribution partner Eureka Entertainment Ltd., are disappointed by the decision of the BBFC to deny the film a classification certificate. While both companies respect the authority of the board, we strongly disagree with their decision.
In support of their decision, the BBFC issued a press release that gave an unprecedented level of detail regarding certain scenes contained within the film. Whilst it appears customary for the BBFC to issue press releases in support of its decision making, the level of detail provided therein does seem inconsistent with previous releases where the statements have been more concise. We are concerned this may be prejudicial to our forthcoming appeal.
The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is adult entertainment for fans of horror films. If a film of this nature does not seek to push boundaries, to challenge people and their value systems or to shock, then it is not horror. The subject matter of this film is in line with not only the genre, but other challenging entertainment choices for adult consumers.
We respect those who have different opinions about both the film and the genre, and whose opinions may differ to our own, but we hope that the opinions of the adults for whom this product is intended will also be considered. The adult consumers who would watch this film fully understand that it is fictional entertainment and nothing more.
Classifying and rating product allows the public to make an informed choice about the art and media they wish to consume. Censoring or preventing the public from obtaining material that has not been proven to be harmful or obscene, is indefensible in principle and is often counterproductive in practice. Through their chosen course of action, the BBFC have ensured that the awareness of this film is now greater than it would otherwise have been.
Having taken advice on these matters, and in accordance with BBFC guidelines, we will be submitting our appeal to the Video Appeals Committee in due course.
Are they right, or is there some point where the BBFC has to say, enough is enough? Its a tough one, as there always has to be a line somewhere few are suggesting the BBFC should grant certificates to real snuff movies or guides to making bombs but exactly where you should stop is always a prickly subject.
The BBFC says they feel the movie poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers, but as always they stop short of saying what that harm is, or why this time its a real risk, instead of a fanciful one. Will it cause people to have mental breakdowns? Are there a significant amount of people who would partake or be pushed towards partaking in sadistic violence in the real world if that saw the film? If the answer is yes to either of those, then perhaps theres an argument to ban the movie, but its all unproven and theoretical.
It should be added as well that the BBFC is bound by the 1984 Video Recordings Act, an extraordinarily woolly piece of legislation they have to uphold, and where the harm concept comes from, but which is notoriously lacking in detail on what harms there might be (it was brought in due to the media uproar over video nasties, but was rushed through with little thought and has never been repealed or significantly amended). As a result the BBFC is left to try and interpret legislation that gives no clue as to what its talking about, other than being slightly obsessed with protecting children from perceived but unquantified dangers.
The irony is that The Human Centipede II is a movie about a man who becomes so obsessed with the first film, that he decides to create his own centipede, stitching together three people mouth-to-anus for his own sexual, sadistic pleasure. Its a premise predicated on the idea that movies can directly influence peoples actions and cause harm, but which is now mired in a censorship debate over just that issue.
So are the distributors (and director Tom Sixs) arguments that its all fictional and the audience will know that fact, a good enough reason to say we shouldnt ban it? Or does even the premise of the film itself suggest that in some cases, films should be banned for the protection of the public at large (including those who might potentially be sewn together into a centipede)? Essentially, is the film now trying to have it cake and eat it?
As always in these situations, we come up against a big conundrum, which is that in order to say whether we think the BBFC was right or not, we need to see the movie but we cant see the movie because the BBFC banned it. While generally Im against censorship, I cant say what Id think here, because I cant see the film (I doubt Id be a fan, as I barely made it through the first one). And it leaves me in the slightly arrogant position that always occurs when censorship is being discussed, where either I or the BBFC have to sit there thinking, Well, it didnt/wouldnt harm me, but what about the mysterious other people out there? Will they be too delicate or impressionable, and do I have the right to decide for them?
Generally Id say neither I nor the BBFC does have the right to make that decision, but if they can show me the actual harm a film could cause, backed up by properly conducted studies and cogent theories as to the costs and benefits (loss of personal freedom versus the scientifically backed harm of particular types of film) of banning certain movies, perhaps Id change my mind. However there arent any, because there are no studies which are generally backed by the scientific community that conclusively prove the idea that films can harm, beyond very isolated cases where people were predisposed anyway, and their interest in film violence is likely to be more symptom than cause (e.g. there have been cases where people have re-enacted a film killing, but its a big jump to say they wouldnt have killed if they hadnt seen that film, or even that a steady diet of film violence caused them or even pushed them towards killing).
I cant help feeling this is another case of the BBFC not liking it when a film does what its meant to. If you make a movie where the violence is causal and blasé, youll have no problem getting a certificate, but if its shocking, appalling and suggests violence, and particularly sexual violence, is truly disgusting and repellent, its more likely cuts or bans will follow.
To my mind, the constant drip-feed on film and TV that violence is just popcorn fun is more harmful to society as a whole, than a movie that horrifies the audience because of the visceral repugnancy it suggests the violence shown has. While I havent seen this particular movie (although it doesnt sound like The Human Centipede invites the audience to genuinely take pleasure in the degradation, but rather to react to it in a visceral way), there have been numerous cases in recent years where the BBFC has asked for cuts to things because of the strong reaction they get from the audience.
For example in Fight Club, they cut out a punch and noise (since restored) at the end of the fight where Ed Norton pummels Jared Leto to within an inch of his life. In the uncut version it really makes people cringe (when I first saw it in the US, the entire audience took a sharp intake of breath). By cutting it, the result is a movie where when people smack each other around for fun, the BBFC says its fine, but the moment the violence is shown to be truly unpleasant and not all that enjoyable (as was the point of the punch, which comes at a tipping point in the film), you cant see it. There have been several other cases, such as the French film, A Ma Soeur, where BBFC cuts have turned what was meant to be something horrible and shocking, into something far more palatable and easier to dismiss, which just seems silly.
Surely it is when violence, and particularly sexual violence, is shown to be horrible, unpleasant and repugnant that the BBFC should adamantly refuse to cut or ban it. Instead theres a tendency (admittedly not as bad now as its used to be) to say its fine when violence has no repercussions and/or the audience can just enjoy it, but if a film shows it as so shocking you might be appalled by it as you hopefully would in real-life you cant see it.
Of course, the people at the BBFC are human, and so when something strikes them strongly and viscerally, thats when they start to think about banning or cutting it. However to my mind, with quite a few BBFC decisions, in their efforts to blunt the strongest moment of visceral impact under the guise of protecting audiences from harm (and nowadays it is nearly always sexual violence that gets the chop), they end up with something that either glorifies or dismisses violence, more than it would have if theyd left it intact.
If Tom Six had made a movie where three people are stitched together, a man masturbates with sandpaper, rapes the woman at the end of the centipede with his bits wrapped in barb-wire, and a general audience could just sit through it and think, Well, that seems fine to me, because nothing in it actually got to them emotionally and viscerally then that would be a problem. However, if the issue is that the audience is cringing and disgusted because of quite how awful the sadistic, sexual degradation of another person is isnt that exactly the reaction we should want? If film can influence people, isnt it preferably for them to be horrified by violence rather than enjoy it?
Sexual violence is awful and disgusting, so if (and it is if, as I cant watch it) thats what The Human Centipede II shows, then isnt that a good thing? Perhaps rather than banning it, the BBFC should have thought that the vast majority of viewers would have had exactly the same reaction they did when viewing it (which presumably wasnt feeling titillated), and that rather than causing harm, it may actually be a good advertisement for thinking sexual violence of any sort is repellent, repugnant and something we should all abhor, even it does form the basic premise of a film.
Perhaps if we have to ban or cut things, rather than focussing on films and moments that really impact audiences and make them give a double-take as to quite how horrible violence can be, the BBFC could take a look at the constant stream of violent images were subjected to, where the audiences isnt even asked to question it or have any reaction other than to smile at the jolly fun of it all.
But hey, perhaps Im completely wrong about all this in the case of The Human Centipede II, but I cant see the movie, so I cant tell you.