Twitter: @JamesEpplerOn the last day of class, one of my favorite professors at Texas Tech took off his button-down shirt to reveal a T-shirt underneath that read "Censorship Sucks."
Yes, it does. I can't think of a single time I've been in favor of it, especially with regard to the arts. But director Tom Six does make an especially compelling case with "The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)."
The British Board of Film Classification just banned it.
For the uninitiated, this new film is a follow-up to a 2009 film that became something of a cult hit because of its sheer grotesqueness. It finds a mad man kidnapping three people and sewing them together, mouth to anus, in a line. They're forced to defecate into each others' mouths, etc.
This sequel, apparently, makes that look quaint.
The BBFC released a statement about why it chose to ban the sequel. Six has criticized the group for the explanation, saying it contains major spoilers for the movie. I'm choosing to post the BBFC statement, but if you plan on seeing the film, or are easily sickened, beware.
"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’. There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalized, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure. It is the Board’s conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character’s obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers."
Six responded with a statement to Empire Magazine saying "Apparently, I made a horrific horror film, but shouldn't a good horror film be horrific? My dear people it is a f****cking [sic] MOVIE. It is all fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief [sic]. It is art. Give people their own choice to watch it or not. If people can't handle or like my movies they just don't watch them."
As much as I hate to say it, and as sick as I find the man to be, Six is right.
Is it the place of an entity to decide whether art is potentially harmful to viewers? What are the things to consider? Is it simply what's shown on screen or is it the intent of the filmmaker that's being judged?
If it's the latter, Six seems to be saying his sole purpose is to entertain - not goad people into acts of violence. Some people have a much higher tolerance for violent or disturbing images on film. Is it not their right to decide what they want see?
I certainly understand the need to regulate who can see a film like this in terms of age restrictions, and indeed, many theater chains refuse to show such content.
But if the filmmaker has a distributor willing for finance it, and theaters are willing to show it, why don't viewers have the same right to see it?
Again, I have absolutely no interest in seeing a film like this. I personally fail to see the artistic value therein.
That's my decision, though. No one should make it for me.
Disagree?
