BBFC bans Human Centipede II outright...
This happened whilst I was away.
The BBFC have refused to award a certificate to - i.e. essentially banned outright - the horror sequel The Human Centipede II. The original was passed '18' uncut.
Here (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BVV278459/) is a link to the BBFC's page and I include their justification below:
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.
In this day and age, censorship like this is increasingly pointless. There hasn't been any feedback on what the film is actually like on horror film fan boards as of yet as no-one has seen it although the Australians have passed it R18+, presumably uncut.
Some people have warned on the web that importing or trying to import (or, more likely, download) the uncut version of the film might very well fall foul of the Dangerous Pictures Act if, as the BBFC claim, the film is basically about eroticising it. But from the sound of it, I doubt it's that.
The other point I want to make is that, with very few exceptions, almost all the films that have been refused BBFC certificates over the last ten years are almost always pointless torture-fests (The Last House on the Left and Love Camp 7 excepted). I don't particularly want to sit through films like that.
Having said that though, in this day and age banning films really does no-one any good apart from the BBFC being able to pander to the Daily Mail lobby. In any civilised country the BBFC would be passing this uncut - not because it's good (or not), but because it's fiction and the state (through this quango) shouldn't be telling its citizens what they can and can't watch.
It's impossible to ban a film in the US, because an American distributor can release it unrated.
In the UK, videos and DVDs have to be classified by law for release. As is the case in Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. So if the BBFC requires cuts for any release (which is very rare these days) they either have to make the cuts (which most do) or have it rejected. Only about two or three videos get rejected a year these days because usually:
- The work features sexual violence throughout and either covertly or overtly endorses what is seen on screen. If the particularly problematic sequence(s) can be shortened or removed without adversely affecting the rest of the movie it will be done. But if it can't, it gets refused. The more extreme 'torture porn' flicks get taken under this - see Grotesque et al.
- The work contravenes the Dangerous Pictures Act, Obscene Publications Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, Animals (Cinematograph) Act or Child Protection Act (amongst others) and cuts cannot remedy the situation. If a film was basically treating child abuse (for example), sexual abuse, hooliganism or drug use/cultivation as though it was a good thing, an immediate rejection would occur if the message is so closely interwined with the work that it becomes impossible to remove. It's very expensive submitting films to the BBFC so distributors don't submit things they know won't pass. Also if they do this it won't exactly make them popular with the BBFC either, so it just wastes everyone's time.
- The work features random clips of real human pain, mutilation and death for no other reason than as prurient entertainment - or, worse, openly mocks their suffering.
- The work is pornography with banned themes - incest-themes, rape-fantasy, extreme BDSM, scatophilia, etc - though pee porn is OK, with some specific exceptions - no peeing during sex for instance.
A lot of the reason for the BBFC these days isn't to protect people from harm - after all, teenagers can see far, far worse on the Internet easily if they were so minded - but to protect the film industry from the Daily Mail mob.
I love The Human Centipede and can't wait to see the aesthetic terrorism of the sequel, no matter how hard it might be to find it. Offending the Thought Police isn't my goal, that's just a bonus when it happens. Oh, what exquisite trauma they shall face, the more they try to erase their inescapable fears. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
So British people won't be allowed to see a movie with British actors, shot in Britain but people in the majority of Continental Europe will. Fan-tastic.
didnt that also happen with 'a clockwork orange' ?
So British people won't be allowed to see a movie with British actors, shot in Britain but people in the majority of Continental Europe will. Fan-tastic.
didnt that also happen with 'a clockwork orange' ?
Yes, it did. And when it became legendary cult classic sinny, the works of the censors came back to bite them in their sodding arses real horrorshow!
ShenLong
Veteran
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,277
Location: With Murphy Freestylin' and Ricky Easy
Bloodheart
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,194
Location: Newcastle, England.
The BBFC have refused to award a certificate to - i.e. essentially banned outright - the horror sequel The Human Centipede II. The original was passed '18' uncut.
Here (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/BVV278459/) is a link to the BBFC's page and I include their justification below:
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.
In this day and age, censorship like this is increasingly pointless. There hasn't been any feedback on what the film is actually like on horror film fan boards as of yet as no-one has seen it although the Australians have passed it R18+, presumably uncut.
Some people have warned on the web that importing or trying to import (or, more likely, download) the uncut version of the film might very well fall foul of the Dangerous Pictures Act if, as the BBFC claim, the film is basically about eroticising it. But from the sound of it, I doubt it's that.
The other point I want to make is that, with very few exceptions, almost all the films that have been refused BBFC certificates over the last ten years are almost always pointless torture-fests (The Last House on the Left and Love Camp 7 excepted). I don't particularly want to sit through films like that.
Having said that though, in this day and age banning films really does no-one any good apart from the BBFC being able to pander to the Daily Mail lobby. In any civilised country the BBFC would be passing this uncut - not because it's good (or not), but because it's fiction and the state (through this quango) shouldn't be telling its citizens what they can and can't watch.
It did pass uncut in Australia: Human Centipede 2 film rating.
_________________
DISCLAIMER: Any posts posted on walls/threads are not meant to offend,they are my opinion/s and mine alone. If you feel insulted by them then use the compose button to discuss it with me.
Cat dead, details later.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
GOP Politician uses IVF and then bans it |
02 Mar 2024, 9:42 pm |
L.I. county bans trans athletes from competing with girls |
08 Mar 2024, 12:32 pm |
First human implanted with neuralink |
03 Feb 2024, 6:55 pm |
Scientists Discover The Human Brain Is Even More Powerful |
05 Mar 2024, 3:38 am |