Censorship, Centipedes & Classification

"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have." [Quote by Emile Chartier]

"Excessive violence", "scenes of extreme gore", "contains strong sexual violence" and "excessive use of strong language". These are consumer advice phrases, which typically land themselves on the reverse of a DVD case and which are becoming evermore frequent in the home entertainment market. As consumers who have arguably, in recent years, become desensitised to much of the violence and debauchery thrust upon us at cinemas, we tend to take these hollow and removed messages with little notice or regard. However, that does not detract from their main purpose and the guidelines laid out by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). These ratings are put in place so we, as the consumer, are able to assess for ourselves the suitability of such films for our person and the people around us. It gives generic reassurances to certain demographics that what they are about to watch can be understood and is suitable for a specific age group, with anyone of age below that certificate running the risk of being emotionally hurt as a result of viewing the film. 

However, it is not the primary role of the BBFC to censor films. Their job is to ensure these films are of a particular suitability and can be placed within a context, which an audience can understand and, therefore, not be grossly offended by.

With this in mind a certain news story, which has certainly piqued the interest of the national press in the past few days, has brought to light certain issues, which the film industry needs to address..... Now.

The Human Centipede: Part II (Full Sequence) has this week been denied certification and thus cannot be distributed in the United Kingdom. A BBFC spokesperson has remarked that the film is "sexually violent" and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to viewers." Furthermore, the statement gives a detailed description of the film and specific scenes, which are likely to cause an extreme level of offense. If you feel that this may be applicable to you, I suggest you skip the next paragraph.

According to the film board Centipede II focuses on the story of how one man becomes obsessed with a DVD copy of the original film and gains perverse pleasure in witnessing the barbarity of how the original victims suffered. The protagonist gains sexual gratification by masturbating under extremely violent circumstances, including wrapping "sandpaper around his penis".  In order to quench his disturbed desires, the mentally depraved individual endeavours to create his very own human centipede, forcing them to defecate into each others mouths, at which point he decides to rape one of the victims using barbed wire around his penis. The BBFC acknowledges that there has been no attempt to portray the victims as anything other than "objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated."

In some perverse way, the above description does not do the BBFC's statement justice. To read the full press release I suggest you head on over to http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31162. Although, there has been quite a furore over this ban, I must say I do agree with the BBFC's decision for a number of reasons.

Censorship. It's a word which has been bandied about quite a lot in relation to this development and its inclusion in arguments is completely unfounded. As I've mentioned previously, it is not the BBFC's primary role to censor and ban films from being distributed. It is their responsibility to ensure that those spheres of society who may be vulnerable to such imagery are protected and I am not referring to those who are over the age of eighteen.

Although these films come with an age rating, it is inevitable that children under the age of eighteen will gain access to such material; be it through their parents purchasing a DVD from a store or a friend bringing round a video owned by an older sibling. I remember my older cousin bringing round horror films for us all to watch at the tender age of ten. For example, I had witnessed A Nightmare of Elm Street at the age of eight and other studies of the macabre before I had even arrived at the nightmarish leviathan known as High School. These films, viewed at that age, were truly terrifying and had a long-lasting effect.

Saying this, even through the myriad of violence and terror on the screen, I could recognise and relate to themes, which permeated through these horror masterpieces: Halloween dealt with the premise of constantly being watched by an unknown force, A Nightmare on the Elm Street explored the realms of the imagination and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre divulged the details of a twisted and disturbing family unit. The reason why these films are classics is not just due to their ability to strike fear in people, but also due to their exploration of recognisable themes, which have an effect on us all. This is one of the reasons The Human Centipede: Part II could be so volatile within the home entertainment sector and not the cinema.

The violence, gore and scares may not be suitable for the younger generations but films such as "Nightmare on Elm Street" explore territory, which children can be intelligent enough to recognise and comprehend.

Sexual perversion and gratification through violence and sadism are themes which still remain taboo within the film industry. Although, there are those who have managed to release their films by tackling these issues with some form of tact. Secretary, 8mm, The Cell and the HBO series True Blood to name but a few. What separates these films, however, from The Human pile of Centi-crap is their implicit, yet no less, barbaric nature. 

For instance, take the underrated 2007 horror Vacancy  starring Luke Wilson. Without giving away the whole plot, this film is set against the backdrop of the production of amateur snuff porn (An extremely sensitive issue). Due to the way in which Vacancy is filmed, we do not explicitly witness any "snuff porn", whereby some minor cast members pop their clogs (Although, it is certainly implied off-camera through the intelligent use of sound). As an adult, our imaginations are only limited by what we have experienced or been exposed to. Given this, we know in our mind's eye what has happened to these unfortunates in detail and are subsequently terrified by it. If a child of ten were to witness this same film, taking into account the limit of their imagination and their life experiences, they could only conclude that something "bad" has happened. 

This may sound quite an alarmingly deluded assessment, but when placed next to a film such as The Human Centipede it isn't hard to deduce why the BBFC have banned it from being classified. I am in no way saying that a child should watch Vacancy, or any other film similar to it, but I'm just stating that there is a certain level of security, which simply isn't present in Mr. Six's new film. Taking into account what the board have said about the matter, it may well be the equivalent of watching an explicit snuff porn film, regardless of whether this "piece of art" is fictional or  not.

Pitching this idea to the British Medical Council wasn't going to be easy.....

So why else do I agree with the council? Well to put it simply, the cinema world doesn't need Tom Six. With his first feature, the Dutchman proved with a sick idea, a good horror film do not make. It was hammy, inadvertently funny, poorly acted, scripted with the intelligence of a dead donkey and, in places, downright disturbing. The scares were as dull as a British politician's fashion sense and the only suspense was provided by wondering whether I had enough milk for a cup of tea after this display of utter crap had ended. To even ask why the first film was financed by a studio, yet alone distributed across America, is a question, which may well never be answered. From the outset and at its core, this film represents the imagination of someone who revels in violence, torture, perversion and sadism..... I will not for one more second burn off any more calories typing about this utter trash and that's that.

By reading the BBFC's statement it appears the second has completely discarded the "themes" of the first feature, with Six's only aim being to shock the living hell out of people and make it as horrific as possible. Six himself has questioned the Council's statement by stating his work is a "piece of art". All I have to say to this is what deluded corner of his brain produced that gem? More importantly, not all horror films have to be horrific (from the definition "grossly offensive to decency or morality"). You only have to watch the new wave of Spanish horror films, such as Julia's Eyes and The Orphanage, to appreciate that the horror genre can scare you but equally have a piece of superb storytelling at it's core; which Sixs' films have neither of.

So, in closing, I undoubtedly agree with the BBFC's decision. Yes, I do accept that this film will probably leak onto the internet and be viewed illegally but at the end of the day the BBFC have acted to limit its access to those who may be perceived as being vulnerable: children. As for Six himself, I don't believe the phrase "any publicity is good publicity" applies. Even if the film is downloaded illegally in this country, he won't get any of the royalties, as will there be no source of income from the home entertainment sector. I would never wish for any bad situation to befall any person but I am somewhat relieved that Six's warped, distorted and downright malicious imagination will not see the light of day in the film industry. Let's just hope that he doesn't wish to pursue a career in medicine!