Censorship in the UK: Tom Six’s The Human Centipede 2 Banned by BBFC. A Criticism of Censorship
Posted: Thursday, June 16, 2011
by Connor Davidson
NOTES
- The following article may be disturbing to some readers. If you are easily disturbed by descriptions and discussion of horror films, then I would advise you not to continue.
- The piece is written with the intention of promoting critical discussion on film censorship. The article uses the Human Centipede as a current example.
- Much of the article is critical of several aspects of the BBFC’s decision which I consider incorrect. However the BBFC did indeed follow the law from the Obscene Publications Act of 1984. The article is critical of this law also.
Before I discuss the film I will give you the BBFC’s plot summary contains spoilers and aloplogies to Tom Six for republishing spoilers of his film.
“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’“ – BBFC 2011
Does it sound like a film you’d like to watch? Probably not.
“Does it sound like a film you’d like to watch? Probably not. However that is not the question. The question is should other people?”
----------------------------------------
You have probably heard that The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) which is the British equivalent of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has recently chosen to ban Tom Six’s new film: “The Human Centipede II (full sequence)”. Unfortunately I cannot make too much comment on the actual content of the film as I cannot see it because a bunch of unelected people say I can’t. However I can at least postulate several questions that I have from reading there press release (reference below).
The first thing I noticed as I read the document was that they called the first film, “undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting” well excuse me but I think the films audience is quite cable of making up their own minds about what is tasteless. I watched the first film and I have to say that I agree that it was disgusting I would not quite say the film as a whole tasteless. I, and I emphasise I, thought the film had artistic merit. The effects were well done and the suspense was first rate and above all the film commands undivided attention.
Though this comment I can live with. Though later on they write “poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers”. The obvious question is: you know this how? When I read this statement I imagine the film being exhibited to a large study group and teams of psychologists quantifying data and publishing in medical journals and then saying “from the collected data the experimenters have concluded that there is a statistically significant correlative relationship between viewing of The Human Centipede II and violence, sex crimes, psychosis etc...”. Anyone can do subjectivity but objectivity is hard work.
Although I have not seen the film and can’t (I am ambivalent about ever watching it anyway – although I worry curiosity will get the better of me as it always does) you have to remember this film is fictional. It’s not a snuff film, Mr Six has not been arrested.
The majority of people can differentiate between reality and fiction. The big worry is psychopaths who are unable to make this distinction who could potentially take inspiration. This is if they have not already took inspiration from: Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit On Your Grave, The House on The Edge of the Park, The Last House on the Left, Blood Feast, Zombie Flesh Eaters or even Faces of Death all of which have been passed by the BBFC only some of which with cuts.
Another problem with this is applying what we consider “gross” to other people who have a different perception of “gross”. Consider if you will anal sex. This is a contentious issue be it homosexually or heterosexually. Did you know that this was illegal in Scotland until 1980 under sodomy laws? Simply because the government thought that it had the right to impose a strict one way system in peoples asses.
In the same way some people can’t handle horror films. I know people who were terrorised and “grossed out” by “The Shinning” and even worse Stephen King’s “It”. Believe those two films are nothing in “grossness” compared to Cannibal Holocaust, Last House on the Left and from the BBFC’s descriptions, The Human Centipede II. The people who are likely to watch The Human Centipede II are probably hardcore horror fans.
The crux of the case is based on the Obscene Publications act which in simple terms means a work that is likely to morally corrupt most people who watch it. The BBFC says that it “may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964” and “ may be considered obscene”. Question: is it or is it not? Is banning a film not that much of a deal that simply saying it may is good enough. Why don’t you take it to a Judge and find out whether it is or it is not.
But you know the worst part? Cinemas have doors (with a two way system), TV’s have an off switch and DVD players have a stop button. Don’t like it don’t watch it. It is amazing how many times this basic argument is repeated.
Though on the flip side I can sympathise with the subjective views of the BBFC. The film sounds disgusting and yes it sounds horrific. I’m sure people will find it offensive. Assuming there descriptions are accurate they are probably right when they say: “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”. I also understand that the BBFC has to follow laws such as the Obscene Publications Acts over which they have no control. So they cannot be critised for following the law.
But I am however open to change my mind should it be conclusively proven scientifically that a significant number adults. There exists a body of research into the effects of horror films on children but little that I could find on adults. If you would like to learn more about the science behind horror movies I would recommend reading “Enjoyment of Mediated Fright and Violence: A Meta-Analysis” by Cynthia A. Hoffner and Kenneth J. Levine.
From reading the above paper and several other papers on the topic of violence and film it appears that the consensus is that there is little evidence of a causal relationship between violence in film and viewers becoming violent. That is to say that studies have shown correlation between watching violent films and violence however this can be put down to violent people being more inclined to view the material. Although the meta- analysis above (that is a collection of lots of studies or in other words a study of the studies) states that one of the reasons people enjoy horror films “empathic distress”. Horror films are an adventure in brain chemistry that different classes of people enjoy. This is why this pacifist writer is a horror fan.
But yet the BBFC is wasting much of its time as I assure you it will be available online which is out with the BBFC’s control and on IMDB the film is up 3,196% this week.
Finally lets collect some thoughts. The film is fictional it’s not a snuff film – the film violence is stuck in fantasy video land with the axe crazed fairies. There is little causal evidence that this violence makes the transition between the fantasy world and the real world by corruption previously normal adult people. But still we cling to the notion that it does and we now fell morally inclined to control adults capable of making informed decisions. Should personal choice be a public decision? Should we just drop the word “personal” and the word “choice” in the phrase personal choice when we talk about extreme horror films.
Am I missing something or is this poorly substantiated, freedom restricting, non-scientific, taste policing, paranoia motivated bigotry based on a stupid law?
Main References
BBFC Press Release:http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/06/bbfc-rejects-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence/
Video Recording act of 1984: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1959/66/pdfs/ukpga_19590066_en.pdf
Video Recording Act of 2010: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/1/notes/division/4/1
This Article has been viewed 792 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.