BBFC passes Human Centipede II after 32 cuts

Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Oct 2011, 6:54 pm

See the press release here (http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/10/the-british-board-of-film-classification-bbfc-has-awarded-an-18-classification-to-a-cut-version-of-the-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence-following-32-cuts/):

Quote:
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has awarded an ’18′ classification to a cut version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE), following 32 cuts.
October 6th, 2011

The DVD of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE) has been passed with an ‘18’ classification following 32 cuts made across 8 separate sequences. The cuts total 2 minutes 37 seconds and address all the concerns raised when the Board refused a classification on 6 June 2011, including those relating to sexual violence, graphic gore and the possibility of breach of the law relating to obscenity.

The President, Sir Quentin Thomas, said “When we first examined this work earlier this year we judged that, as submitted, it was unsuitable for classification; and, as we explained to the company, we could not ourselves see how cuts could produce a viable and classifiable work. That remains the view of one of our Vice Presidents, Gerard Lemos, who is therefore abstaining from the Board’s collective decision.

”The company lodged an appeal against our decision to refuse classification. In the course of preparations for that appeal, the company proposed a number of cuts which it was right for us to consider. In response, after further examination, we proposed a more extensive series of cuts. These cuts produce a work which many will find difficult but which I believe can properly be classified at the adult level. The company has now accepted these cuts, withdrawn its appeal and the work has been classified, as cut, at 18.”



Jory
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,520
Location: Tornado Alley

06 Oct 2011, 6:57 pm

I haven't even seen the first one, but I've been told it's godawful. Not godawful as in "this is disgusting and offensive" but godawful as in "this is really a very poor film." It's about people getting their heads shoved up other peoples' asses to make a "human centipede," isn't it? Ah, the jokes just write themselves.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Oct 2011, 7:05 pm

The cuts were to the rape bits in it. I must say, that's rather a lot of cuts for a film these days. Hell, even the infamous slasher rape film House on the Edge of the Park was recently passed '18' on DVD with 43 seconds of cuts.

I think this must generally mean that a film has to be pretty excessive/unsuitable to get rejected and stay rejected.



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

06 Oct 2011, 7:16 pm

Jory wrote:
I haven't even seen the first one, but I've been told it's godawful. Not godawful as in "this is disgusting and offensive" but godawful as in "this is really a very poor film." It's about people getting their heads shoved up other peoples' asses to make a "human centipede," isn't it? Ah, the jokes just write themselves.

Surgically attached, actually, mouth to anus. At the end of the first one (from what I've read - I have no desire to see it) the one in front was killed while himself killing the surgeon who had done it to them, the one in the back died of blood poisoning, and the one in the middle was left alone and surgically attached to two corpses.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


Jory
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,520
Location: Tornado Alley

06 Oct 2011, 7:21 pm

This still sounds more pleasant than Transformers.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Oct 2011, 8:45 pm

i wonder if in america, the MPAA CARA would even give it an NC17 rating.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

06 Oct 2011, 9:29 pm

auntblabby wrote:
i wonder if in america, the MPAA CARA would even give it an NC17 rating.


Wouldn't it be easier to release it unrated?

And as for The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence): the Australian Classification Board gave the film an 'R18+' uncut.



Jory
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,520
Location: Tornado Alley

06 Oct 2011, 9:31 pm

Most theatres in America won't show a movie that doesn't have an MPAA rating. Of course, on DVD, they can show whatever they want.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

06 Oct 2011, 11:41 pm

Tequila wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
i wonder if in america, the MPAA CARA would even give it an NC17 rating.


Wouldn't it be easier to release it unrated?

And as for The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence): the Australian Classification Board gave the film an 'R18+' uncut.


america has its usual weird and perverse puritanical bible belt thing going on, in that most newspapers won't advertise adult-rating [nc-17] movies, so those films have a nearly impossible time getting any theatres in the bible belt to exhibit them at all. unrated movies have an even harder time of it outside of the cosmopolitan centers away from the bible belt. for all practical purposes, if it's not rated R or below, most people won't even get to see it unless it is on video. keep in mind that the american Restricted rating is different from other nations' restricted rating, in that ours means that young children can see such films as long as they are accompanied by an adult, they are not banned altogether as they would be in the commonwealth nations, for example. but to get our R rating means that a film producer must jump through hoops and make guestimate edits of adult content to his/her film to get it under the R. from what i could find online, human centipede 2 was given an R rating here also, though i could find no info as to whether or not it has been censored to get that R. i tend to believe it has been cut because there is the possibility that children could be seeing this film under the rules of our restricted rating. the uncut versions are usually saved for the DVD. btw, major store chains here also will not sell nc-17 or unrated DVDs.
can you tell me why the BBFC is stricter than the australian classification board?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

07 Oct 2011, 4:05 am

auntblabby wrote:
can you tell me why the BBFC is stricter than the australian classification board?


The odd thing is, they're often not. Salò has only just been passed uncut in Australia this year on DVD because of the addition of three hours of mitigating extras after ten years of appeals and numerous bans and legal challenges. Sometimes they are - i.e. Cannibal Holocaust, Caligula, Love Camp 7 and I Spit on Your Grave are uncut in Australia but both are still cut in the UK, the latter still quite heavily.cut here. Some films cut in the UK are banned altogether in Australia - the Violence Jack OVAs are heavily cut here but one of them was refused classification in Oz, so the rest were scrapped. A Serbian Film has recently been banned altogether in Australia after being released three times: in the uncut version, a version missing two minutes and then another missing four. In the UK, the film is missing nearly four minutes but has been passed '18'.

The Australian censors are more likely to outright ban porn DVDs as well, whereas we just cut them.

It takes a lot for the BBFC to get out the cutting scissors these days, but usually it's down to real animal cruelty or depictions of rape (I'm quite surprised they left in as much of the rape as they did in the new release of House on the Edge of the Park - only the Cindy razor scene has been altered). The BBFC very rarely ban anything outright now - perhaps one or two DVDs (not cinema films, videos) a year. Some porn fetishes are allowed in the UK but not in Australia: female ejaculation and urination (outside sex) are OK in Britain but banned altogether in Australia - the former especially is considered obscene.

Also, the Australians have a slightly different moral code to the BBFC. Also, I'm led to believe that the Aussies have a strong Christian, Bible-bashing influence about them that isn't really the case in the UK. No, our Righteousness is much more secular. Anyone can join in.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

09 Oct 2011, 1:57 pm

Something that struck me in the BBFC's cuts list: at least two of the sequences that they cut are neither sexually violent nor concerning the murder of children. If this was any other movie, they would not have been removed. I think those cuts are unjustifiable.



Jory
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,520
Location: Tornado Alley

09 Oct 2011, 2:10 pm

It seems the BBFC and MPAA are stupid in entirely different ways. The BBFC tells filmmakers what elements of a film they have a problem with and want cut, and those elements seem to be chosen at random since they're typically less extreme than other parts of the film. The MPAA, on the other hand, just tells filmmakers to tone it down, and refuses to point out any specific elements they don't like, on the pretense that this would amount to censorship. (Yeah, I know. None of this makes any sense, so don't try.) This is why so many filmmakers have gotten NC-17 films downgraded to an R by simply cutting a few frames here and there, or in some cases, submitting the film again without changing a thing.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Oct 2011, 2:13 pm

Tequila wrote:
Something that struck me in the BBFC's cuts list: at least two of the sequences that they cut are neither sexually violent nor concerning the murder of children. If this was any other movie, they would not have been removed. I think those cuts are unjustifiable.


what were the specific cuts?
back in the 1960s they really butchered a james bond 007 movie, "from russia with love," removing two references to the line "what a performance!" pertaining to a film reel of james bond and some floozy going at it- the second of the aforementioned cuts ruined the soundtrack music! this footage is permanently lost.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

09 Oct 2011, 2:27 pm

The thing is, the vast majority of films are released uncut here. It's only those few films that end up being cut. One of the most common reasons are horse falls (animal cruelty). They don't cut sexual violence anything like the amount they used to and only particularly intense scenes get cut (all the rape scenes from House on the Edge of the Park have been left in with only the Cindy razor sequence suffering cuts). Hardcore footage is now allowed at '18' and has been for nearly ten years as long as it isn't gratuitous.

The thing is that the BBFC are being very inconsistent in the case of this particular film. Obviously the rejection wasn't going to stand for a film as major as this. If it was a 1970s exploitation flick from a small distributor, then it would be another matter. Not only would it be very costly for the distributor (submitting a movie to the board costs £730 (around US$1,140) for a 90-minute film alone without extras) but it would also be a massive waste of time after buying the rights and getting the special features together, at further cost. A rejection can bankrupt a company which is why no distributor will submit a film they know won't pass in at least some recognisable form.

Most films pass uncut these days. All but the most extreme horror and exploitation films now pass uncut or with minor cuts at the most unless the actress is underage like in some of the Franco films, or there is hardcore throughout. [i}Cannibal Holocaust[/i] recently passed with 14 seconds of cuts - a big victory for the distributor (the last submission from ten years ago had nearly 6 minutes removed) whereas the hardcore scene in Bare Behind Bars was removed altogether, the cuts to that totalling around a minute and a half (the film was rejected outright in 1994). House on the Edge of the Park was passed '18' with 43 seconds of cuts earlier this month - the previous version from ten years ago was missing nearly 12 minutes. So progress is happening, by distributors gently pushing the boundaries with the Board and negotiating with them. It's in their interests to play ball, basically but at the moment it is true that those companies distributing the more intense kind of horror film often don't quite know what the BBFC will pass and what they will cut, to a point at least. Obviously some films will not get any kind of certificate here for a very, very long time (if ever) for legal reasons or would have to go so much cutting as to make a release pointless.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

09 Oct 2011, 2:31 pm

auntblabby wrote:
what were the specific cuts?


From the BBFC website:

Quote:
HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE)

This work was cut. The cut(s) were Compulsory.

To obtain this category cuts of 2m 37s were required. Details of cuts below may contain spoilers of plot details.

Company was required to make 32 individual cuts to scenes of sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence and humiliation, and a child presented in an abusive and violent context. In this case, cuts included: a man masturbating with sandpaper around his penis; graphic sight of a man's teeth being removed with a hammer; graphic sight of lips being stapled to naked buttocks; graphic sight of forced defecation into and around other people's mouths; a man with barbed wire wrapped around his penis raping a woman; a newborn baby being killed; graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals' mouth and buttocks. Cuts required in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, policy and the Video Recordings Act 1984.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,609
Location: the island of defective toy santas

09 Oct 2011, 3:59 pm

^^^
i wonder what the BBFC woulda thought about the "faces of death" movies? there was one particularly ugly scene featuring a live monkey getting its brains bashed out and demented restaurant patrons scooping out its brains while it was still alive. i couldn't hit the stop button fast enough. those "people" should all have been taken out and had THEIR brains bashed out of their own heads and eaten by other dementoids. :x