Human Centipede II

[Axe]

I think it's inevitable that there will be rejections from time to time, but at least they are much less frequent now. For example the BBFC rejected 36 films in 1973, which is more than all the rejections in the last 10 years put together. The last time they rejected a black and white film though must go back over 40 years.

[DoctorKaren]

... A vast amount of material ...

... No amount of legislation and no amount of labelling will ever stop dumbasses being bad parents.

I'm not entirely sure about that... In extreme cases I have to agree, but the vast majority of parents, even the really thick ones, don't aspire to make a crap job of it, and will use advice given to make an informed decision for both their children and for themselves. .

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this assertion. I spent a former life interviewing and working with community groups and can say that while no parent I have ever met aspires to be 'bad', there are far too many well-meaning people who do not have the start of a clue how to parent (as we meant it here). They think their own opinion (or lack of) is the best guidance for their own offspring and will get very grumpy indeed if anyone (particularly an authority figure) tries to suggest otherwise. It is probably the quickest way to start a row with someone. This is not limited to any particular social group, particularly in an age of rapidly evolving technology and socially accepted behaviours.

Having said that, this is not to suggest that every kid who has suffered bad parenting and watched something inappropriate for their age and experience is going to turn into raving delinquent. Most 'delinquents' I've met are more keen on action films than horror, but that's a whole other story.

[Mr Bill]

Human Centipede 2 is an adult film that has been refused an 18 certificate, discussing the state of bad parenting in relation to this is moving the goal posts in an annoying and dangerous direction. I know many on here are very good at playing devil's advocate in order "to be fair to the BBFC", but it's starting to feel like the BBFC's arguement is so weak that some people feel compelled to hand them new ones out of misplaced sympathy, and by doing so muddy the moral high ground that we rightfully occupy on this.

I think the parenting issue is as relevant to HC2 as the amusing impact of Absynth on toddlers is to the underage drinking debate...but:

I don't doubt the good Doctor's insight and experience on the subject of parenting, and most of her comments aren't actually that far from my own. I know that parents hate being told what to do and will ignore the dubious authority of those that take a heavy handed and inflexible approach to compliance, but it still surprises me just how many parents read the content advice on the back of dvds before renting them- especially if they are making a value judgement for their teenage kids. Even the really scummy parents with horrible screaming children who make me worry if I'll ever get the films back again, do actually pay attention to Classification just like they read the traffic light nutrition labels before they stuff their kids full of crisps and burgers. The same clueless parents who resent direct instructions will listen to advice if it isn't rammed down their throats, even if they ultimately choose to ignore it, they still listen, but the choice will always be theirs regardless.

The best way to protect children from exposure to HC2 is to grant it an 18 certificate, give parents (and all potential viewers) an informed choice and allow the industry to adopt a responsible attitude at the point of sale, because they won't get that kind of sage advice from a bit torrent site! For the BBFC's valid classification advice to carry more weight they have to nurture their credibility, because many people (parents included) will dismiss them more readily if they are still perceived as the hysterical organisation that ruled you have to be 15 to watch Karate Kid and who played such a big role in the video nasties outrage. Most people will know somebody who saw Driller Killer, or the like, at 14 years old and didn't grow into a serial killer as predicted, so the BBFC has some considerable ground to recover here- and by refusing a certificate to HC2 they have willfully thrown away decades of hard earned respect and credibility.

I know that the BBFC doesn't "get it wrong" as much as they used to, and they are predominantly involved in classifying thousands of films, and censoring just a few, but high profile cases like Grotesque, ASF, ISOYG and now HC2, are causing more and more of my customers to regard them as an officious mob of reactionary, condescending N.I.M.B.Y.s who deserve to be ignored with extreme prejudice (I'm paraphrasing of course, the term I usually hear is "fucking idiots").

As the internet renders the BBFC more and more impotent as a censor effecting the small, minority audience interested in HC2, they will regret undermining their more tenable position as a helpful and respected advisor to a nation of 60 million film viewers.

I also keep hearing "the BBFC have seen the film and you haven't so maybe you should listen to them" as another arguement for cutting the BBFC some slack, but I am very comfortable flippantly dismissing it along with all Richard's meticulously gathered facts and figures, because I actually want to sneer like Mary Whitehouse reflected in a black mirror and calmly say;
"I don't need to see the film to know that, as a film, responsible adults in a civilised country should be allowed to see it!"

Is nobody else just plain angry about this?
I found sherbetbizarre's links very helpful, and signed the pettition straight away, but does anybody have any more proactive channels down which I can direct my personal and professional indignation?
I'm enjoying all the intelligent conjecture and speculation (I think DoctorKaren once called it "hyperbollocks") on this thread, but as well as an over complex legal issue, there is also a pretty simple liberty issue at stake here.
I know with every fibre of my being that the BBFC is in the wrong (as they have been before), and I want them to give us back our films!

I really feel this is a "Them & Us" situation, where we have the moral high ground, yet we are considering their position with far more diligence and respect than they are considering ours.

How do we fight them? Because I think it's time.

[streetrw]

I know I'm running the risk of repeating myself, and I know you're not really interested in facts, but it really does need to be said: the BBFC had nothing to do with the video nasties affair. Once more for the slow people in the class: the BBFC had nothing to do with the video nasties affair. Sorry about that, but they didn't. By all means criticise them for things they haven't done, but if you can only make your argument stick by blaming them for things they didn't do, it's not much of an argument.

Incidentally, they originally passed The Karate Kid - http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVF040606/ - as a PG for cinemas after a few cuts to get a PG; it was a 15 on video because there wasn't a 12 at the time - it's a video 12 now - and it might well have been the full version submitted for a video release. Besides, a lot of home viewing certificates were upped back then - Midnight Run was a 15 at the cinema and an 18 on video. They didn't even see Driller Killer until 1999 - http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BVV102592/ - and even then they didn't cut it: CBVS (cut before video submission). Never passed (and never rejected) for cinema release, it was most likely passed by local authorities like the then-GLC for places like The Scala (which is where I saw it).

And yet again, you go back to the "monkey see monkey do" argument - "who saw Driller Killer, or the like, at 14 years old and didn't grow into a serial killer as predicted". This is a gross simplification of the argument which stems from the Whitehouse camp and the tabloids that supported the bandwagon; it's more a question of glamourisation (you can get an 18 for a film like Christiane F that makes drugs look squalid, painful and highly dangerous but you'd have more trouble getting a film passed that showing drugs to be fun and exciting and harmless) and eroticism - making rape and sexual violence into entertainment.

On the subject of parenting - on several occasions I've been in HMV or Blockbusters where plainly 8-12 year olds have been picking up 18 films and told by the accompanying adult that "you've already seen that one" or "you've already got that one at home". Indeed, my one time on jury service was for a case involving a molested child after a sleepover where a group of underteens had sat and watched Hellraiser. Responsible parenting? No.

None of which, however, is actually getting us anywhere. Essentially, we're playing Schroedinger's Film - trying to work out whether a film is obscene without opening the box and seeing it. And while you dismiss the (again) FACT that the BBFC have seen it and we haven't as any kind of justification that actually know what they're talking about - it is unarguable that you wouldn't accept a film review from a critic who hasn't seen the film. This is precisely the same thing: like it or not, they have and you haven't, and their response does carry more weight. They DO know. And for all your saying "I know...the BBFC are in the wrong", you don't. You just think they are. Eventually, you might see the film and decide they were right.

And without seeing it, we can only deal with it in theory. Sadly, it's less a discussion about freedoms and responsibilities and more the unedifying sight of a child in Tescos stamping their feet and screeching "Mummy! I want sweeties!" And no, personally I can't get that angry about it. Once more, there are a hell of a lot more things to get angry about than "the nasty man won't let me see the dirty movie". It's not an issue to make a stand on. It was an issue back in the eighties when there were dozens of films prosecuted and hundreds of films cut. It was an issue when something as tedious as The Burning or Unhinged was defined as obscene, because (legal definitions notwithstanding) they patently weren't - many people had seen them since they were already out there and freely available. That's not the case now.

[Mr Bill]

Thanks Richard... I'll just take that as a no.

I hadn't realised I was a slow student in your classroom, but seeing you now, as an overworked and exhausted supply teacher repeating himself for the umpteenth time and struggling to keep control of the younger, and more uppity kids bored complacent by the rigid curriculum that you have long since accepted as unchangeable, suddenly all your posts have new and resonant meaning.
I think this, along with your colourful image of me as a petulant child having a screaming tantrum in Tescos, is something that we should discuss outside school, preferably over a pint, in August.
As I have said before, discussing it here could get nasty, not to mention 'off topic'.

With all due respect, I don't have to ask my Mummy's permission to watch films any more, and I think it is my prerogative, as an adult, to resent needing anybody elses. I do think it is unfair that we will not be allowed to enjoy Tom Six's film, as a Frightfester amused by the original, I was certainly always curious, and as a retailer I was keen on carrying the film as an important part of a comprehensive range for extreme horror fans.

It is up to me if, and how fiercely, I decide to take a stand on this, and I really don't think asking a few questions, signing a petition or writing a couple of letters is comparable to a tearful child stamping their feet in a supermarket.
It is not inherently 'childish' to question, or even disagree with, those in positions of authority when they make decisions that effect us. It may well be pointless, but I am not yet jaded enough to give up on the idea that we live in a world where things can be changed by the people living in it.

I understand if you have more important things to do or get angry about, but I'm amazed you feel argueing with me is one of them.

If anybody else has any helpful links, contacts, advice or news on what is happening regarding HC2's appeal or how we can help or show our support to the film makers, then I look forward to reading them.

I guess in the meantime I'll put on the dunce's hat and sit next to Mr Six on the naughty step, maybe he's got sweeties!

[Axe]

I'm sure we'll have a lot more to say about the film when we've seen it but at the moment it's a little difficult to say if the BBFC were right or wrong but they say (amongst other things) that passing the film would be in contravention of their guidelines and the VRA. So presumably if they were to pass it it would mean they would have to pass other films that have recently been cut/rejected for the same reason eg Scrapbook, Murder Set Pieces, Neighbor etc. Otherwise it would be inconsistent. Really can't see it happening.

I hope the distributor will go through with the appeal (only 2 weeks left to do so) as I'm curious to see what will happen,

[MaxRenn]

I think until the appeals process against the initial rejection is concluded we won't have any more information to go on as nether party will wish to be seen trying to influence or prejudice that.

Fundamentally I think adults should be trusted to make their own viewing choices when it comes to entertainment some obvious legal restrictions.

Ultimately the film will be available to whomever wants to see it through non legitimate routes that will lack what little safeguards an 18 Cert would have offered against it consumption by under 18s.

I will watch for the appeal outcome with great interest. And then there is the looming prospect of The Bunny Game, a film which is going to provoke some very interesting moral and artistic debate.

[Axe]

Anyone here seen The Bunny Game? Made in b/w - like HC2.

[MaxRenn]

Anyone here seen The Bunny Game? Made in b/w - like HC2.

Nope, just the trailer and what I've read about it. To be honest, I'm not sure I want to see it

[Bearded Avenger]

"And without seeing it, we can only deal with it in theory. Sadly, it's less a discussion about freedoms and responsibilities and more the unedifying sight of a child in Tescos stamping their feet and screeching "Mummy! I want sweeties!" And no, personally I can't get that angry about it. Once more, there are a hell of a lot more things to get angry about than "the nasty man won't let me see the dirty movie". It's not an issue to make a stand on. It was an issue back in the eighties when there were dozens of films prosecuted and hundreds of films cut. It was an issue when something as tedious as The Burning or Unhinged was defined as obscene, because (legal definitions notwithstanding) they patently weren't - many people had seen them since they were already out there and freely available. That's not the case now."

I think this just about sums it up.

And if people really want to see it (IMO the orginal was just average) they can order a DVD off the internet when it comes out abroad.

[MaxRenn]

While I agree with Richard that it is difficult if not impossible to have an informed discussion about a film we haven't seen. I'm not about to give the BBFC a free pass just because they are now a more liberal organisation than the Ferman era. Not only have we not seen the film, we only have the selective description from their press release.

Again, I will be watching and waiting for the results of the appeal process. When that is done and dusted we should be able to gain a clearer picture of what this is really about.

It may be that at the end of the day HC2 is a squalid piece of trash, but the truth is right now none of us has any idea.

[jonbly]

No-one seems to have actually quoted the BBFC text here:

This work was rejected.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) is a horror sequel in which a vulnerable and disturbed individual, sexually obsessed with the first film, attempts to create his own 'human centipede'. Unlike the first HUMAN CENTIPEDE, this work presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation and mutilation and the viewer is invited to experience the event from the perspective of the central character. The central focus of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) is the sexual arousal of this character at the idea and later the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, rape and murder of his naked victims. There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised and degraded for the amusement and sexual arousal of the main character and for the pleasure of the viewer. There is a strong and sustained focus throughout the work on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between non-consensual pain and sexual pleasure.

In making a decision as to whether a video work is suitable for classification, the BBFC applies the criteria set out in its Classification Guidelines. These Guidelines are the result of a regular public consultation process and reflect the balance of media effects research, the requirements of UK law and the attitudes of the UK public. The Guidelines set out clearly the BBFC's serious concerns about the portrayal of sexual violence. The BBFC are also obliged under the Video Recordings Act 1984 (VRA) to have special regard to the likelihood of any harm that may be caused to the viewer or, through their behaviour, to society. This risk of harm includes encouraging a dehumanised view of others, callousness towards victims and taking pleasure in the pain and humiliation of others.

The BBFC also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of UK law, including works that may be potentially obscene under the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA). The BBFC engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, the police and the Ministry of Justice. It is the view of the BBFC that there is a genuine risk that this work may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above.

After careful consideration, it was judged that to issue a certificate to THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE), even if statutorily confined to adults, would involve risk of harm within the terms of the VRA, would be inconsistent with our Guidelines, would be unacceptable to the public and could be in potential breach of UK law. The BBFC considered whether cutting the work might address the issues but concluded that as the unacceptable material featured throughout, cutting was not a viable option and the work was therefore refused a classification.

That first paragraph makes it pretty clear why the film was rejected, as far as jonbly's concerned.

[Axe]

Agree Jonbly, it's pretty easy to see why it was banned going by the text there, but at the same time I'm still eager to see it just to see if it really couldn't have been passed with cuts as has been claimed.

[Mr Bill]

Purely for the sake of balance, here is U.K. distributor Eureka Entertainment's response to the BBFC's statement quoted above:

“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.”

The penultimate paragraph sums up my position in calmer terms than I could ever manage.

[Axe]

Well hopefully the appeal has been lodged now because the deadline for appeals in regards to the VAC ended last monday - which was 6 weeks after the rejection.