Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[knives]

Though I'm on your side Sausage, just to play devil's advocate, what do you feel about their no murder policy? You know like the forced editing out of a snake's, I believe, actual killing in Marketa Lazarova for example.

[Nothing]

Sausage is corrct here, of course, the BBFC is an anachronism and their claims in regards to 'harm' are entirely unproven (and, arguably, unprovable). Whilst the BBFC are a private company, given the existence of the VRA they are still essentially an extension of government policy in that, inlike the MPAA in America, distributors are legally obliged to surrender to their judgement. Worst of all, perhaps, are the substantial sums charged for the privilege of having material vetted and potentially censored.

[mfunk9786]

Can Nothing be justified?

[MichaelB]

Though I'm on your side Sausage, just to play devil's advocate, what do you feel about their no murder policy? You know like the forced editing out of a snake's, I believe, actual killing in Marketa Lazarova for example.

That's not BBFC policy - it's the criminal law, specifically the 1937 Animals Act. The 1984 Video Recordings Act requires the BBFC to take all relevant criminal legislation into account when assessing films, so their hands are tied.

It's also not a "no murder policy" - instant killing of the type seen in a couple of Michael Haneke films is fine. The law only comes into play when pain is unambiguously being inflicted on an animal for the purposes of the film.

I'm broadly on Sausage's side too - I have no great objection to a classification system, not least because it keeps the tabloids at bay, but I think it should be optional. If people really want to distribute Lost in the Hood and My Daughter's A Cocksucker, they're welcome to take their chances with the 1959 Obscene Publications Act. The BBFC's legal advice is very useful indeed (I speak from experience here), but I think it's better to give distributors the information and let them decide whether or not to risk prosecution.

[MichaelB]

Incidentally, is this the first time that Nothing and Sausage have agreed over anything?

How touching that it should be over a film about enforced human bonding.

[doc mccoy]

To be fair though, the BBFC is getting better (certainly compared to how it used to be) - take for instance its recent decision on Shameless' submission of Cannibal Holocaust: Shameless sought its advice prior to submission and the BBFC suggested that only 14 seconds of cuts would needed - relating to animal cruelty. And this is the original version; Deodato is apparently also submitting a new cut of his own which is even milder than the original version.

Censorship is deplorable but at the same time there are occasions where one has to ask how wise is it to rail against it - for example, real life animal cruelty is unacceptable. If a censor wants to ban/cut such a sequence, what does it say about the person who wants to preserve it? Take Mountain of the Cannibal God - Martino apparently was asked to include real life animal cruelty to spice the film up. Now you tell me - are we to seriously blame the censor rather than the distributor who asked for footage of animals being killed to be inserted? Is the principle of creative licence and freedom so superlative that it overrides other principles such as animal rights?

[Nothing]

If a crime was committed in the production of an image then the commercial exploitation of that image should be legally prohibited, except in circumstances of exceptional public interest (eg. news reportage of Jihadi videos, holocaust footage, etc) - but this doesn't require the VRA, or any of the oppressive obscenity laws that exist in the UK. Even then, the sanctions should consist of injunctions and fines rather than criminal sentences, although one would of course expect an investigation and criminal prosecution of the illegal activity captured in the image where possible.

[Brian C]

If a crime was committed in the production of an image then the commercial exploitation of that image should be legally prohibited, except in circumstances of exceptional public interest (eg. news reportage of Jihadi videos, holocaust footage, etc) - but this doesn't require the VRA, or any of the oppressive obscenity laws that exist in the UK.

I suppose I generally understand your likely meaning here, but I'm thinking of something innocuous like Exit Through the Gift Shop which features a lot of unlawful vandalism and which doesn't really satisfy the "extraordinary public interest" circumstance.

[Nothing]

Banksy is a well known public figure, a recognised and successful modern artist, and there's a lot of public interest in seeing how he goes about his work.

You do raise an interesting point, though, as I suppose the police could theoretically use the footage to pursue a prosecution - and indeed the BBFC are supposed to prohibit footage containing 'instructional detail' of criminal acts (how to hotwire a car, for example). This appears to have passed them by in this case, with strong language the only thing mentioned in their classificiation information. I guess they figure that how to opening a can of spray paint and point it at a wall isn't exactly inside information.

[Brian C]

Banksy is a well known public figure, a recognised and successful modern artist, and there's a lot of public interest in seeing how he goes about his work.

Not that I disagree or anything, but let's be clear; this is a huge step down from "exceptional" public interest.

Point is, using your standard, someone has to make the decisions as to what does and does not constitute sufficient (or "exceptional") merit - just like with the BBFC or other classification/censorship boards. All you're really doing, it seems, is designating your preferred standards as the ideal, just like every other would-be censor out there.

[Nothing]

You'd be surprised at what constitutes an exceptional public interest in the UK (see numerous court battles between the tabloid press and their celebrity prey over the past few decades).

[Brian C]

No doubt. But what that has to do with anything, I'm at a loss to say.

[Finch]

Eureka are going to appeal the BBFC's ban. Brief press release below:

In the light of the decision of the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) not to grant The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) a classification certificate, Bounty Films (Australia), in conjunction with its UK distribution partner Eureka Entertainment Ltd. intends to appeal the decision.

Bounty MD Tony Romeo said:

"In Australia the film has been granted a certificate with no cuts. We are extremely surprised therefore by the BBFC's decision."

At this time we do not wish to comment further.

[mfunk9786]

I want a MoC release if they can get this overturned

[swo17]

I wonder if Nick's come around on it at all.

[Finch]

Since the BBFC have already stated that no amount of cuts would render the film eligible for release in their opinion, Eureka will have to make an extremely compelling argument to turn this round in court. Personally, I'd rather that they focus on recruiting extra personnel for MoC instead of pursuing this, especially for a movie like this one. I am, however, surprised that HC2 got passed uncut down under. I was under the impression that Australia's censorship laws were, if anything, tougher than ours.

I imagine that this whole affair could be as prolonged as Rockstar's appeal against the BBFC's initial ban of Manhunt 2 (the game was eventually released in a much-toned down version, and if I recall correctly, several months after most other countries).

[Nothing]

Bradshaw weighs in (with a few wobbly facts, unfortunately).

[Jonathan S]

Since the BBFC have already stated that no amount of cuts would render the film eligible for release in their opinion, Eureka will have to make an extremely compelling argument to turn this round in court. Personally, I'd rather that they focus on recruiting extra personnel for MoC instead of pursuing this, especially for a movie like this one...

I feel the same, but I suspect that if they are so keen to do this, the first 'Pede must be a moneyspinner for Eureka and (although they are technically different companies) probably underwrites some of MoC's commercially riskier releases - as in the old Hollywood system, where genre movies often paid for the "artistic" or "prestige" pictures.

[MichaelB]

Since the BBFC have already stated that no amount of cuts would render the film eligible for release in their opinion, Eureka will have to make an extremely compelling argument to turn this round in court. Personally, I'd rather that they focus on recruiting extra personnel for MoC instead of pursuing this, especially for a movie like this one. I am, however, surprised that HC2 got passed uncut down under. I was under the impression that Australia's censorship laws were, if anything, tougher than ours.

Yes, I was intrigued by that too - isn't Salò still banned over there?

But it's worth noting that the post-2000 liberalisation of the R18 category was effectively forced on the BBFC after an appeal decision went against them - and the films under review were hardcore porn titles like Batbabe and Horny Catbabe. I've actually seen the first of these, as I bought it in 1997 out of curiosity when I heard that James Ferman had got himself into political hot water by passing it, so I can confirm first hand that it has no artistic merit whatsoever. On the other hand, it doesn't feature anyone being raped with barbed wire, which might be the sticking point here.

Talking of R18 policy, this Index on Censorship interview with one of the BBFC's hardcore porn specialists is well worth a read.

I feel the same, but I suspect that if they are so keen to do this, the first 'Pede must be a moneyspinner for Eureka and (although they are technically different companies) probably underwrites some of MoC's commercially riskier releases - as in the old Hollywood system, where genre movies often paid for the "artistic" or "prestige" pictures.

I completely agree - this has been standard practice since the year dot. Even Criterion has its Armageddons and Benjamin Buttons, though sometimes the cash cows aren't what you'd necessarily expect - for instance, one of the BFI's smarter commercial decisions was to take over management of much of the British Transport Films catalogue back in the 1990s...

[colinr0380]

I am, however, surprised that HC2 got passed uncut down under. I was under the impression that Australia's censorship laws were, if anything, tougher than ours.

Yes, I was intrigued by that too - isn't Salò still banned over there?

It was unbanned in 1993 then re-banned in 1998!

I think Eureka/Bounty are going to be on a hiding to nothing with this appeal business - I can remember back to when Redemption were appealing against wholesale cuts (and bans to films like Bare Behind Bars) to their video releases and it only seemed to harden the BBFC's attitude towards that company.

[MichaelB]

I don't see how an appeal can succeed without Eureka proving that the BBFC has nothing to worry about regarding possible prosecution for obscenity. And I don't see how they can furnish such proof without an actual court hearing and acquittal - which could be an expensive gamble.

I'm racking my brains trying to think of an equivalent situation, and came up with the International Guerrillas affair from 1990/91, when the BBFC refused a certificate to a low-budget Pakistani action thriller whose villain was Salman Rushdie. The BBFC was concerned that it might be criminally libellous - but Rushdie was the only person who could sue, and he promised not to. So the BBFC's concerns evaporated instantly, and the film was duly passed.

But the crucial difference here is that we're dealing with potential obscenity, not libel, and so there isn't a single convenient individual to hand who can turn the situation on its head.

[GaryC]

I am, however, surprised that HC2 got passed uncut down under. I was under the impression that Australia's censorship laws were, if anything, tougher than ours.

Yes, I was intrigued by that too - isn't Salò still banned over there?

It was unbanned in 1993 then re-banned in 1998!

It was passed for DVD release in 2010 - the deciding factor being the contextual extras on the disc. Without them, it would have remained banned. "In the Review Board's majority opinion Salo warrants this classification because the inclusion of additional material on the DVD facilitates wider consideration of the context of the film which results in the impact being no more than high."

Because of the inevitable lack of extras, Salò remains banned in Australian cinemas.

Another Aus/UK censorship comparison would be A Serbian Film, refused classification at full length but passed with three minutes cut.

[matrixschmatrix]

It was passed for DVD release in 2010 - the deciding factor being the contextual extras on the disc. Without them, it would have remained banned. "In the Review Board's majority opinion Salo warrants this classification because the inclusion of additional material on the DVD facilitates wider consideration of the context of the film which results in the impact being no more than high."

Does that mean if you slap a documentary about the history of censorship and a commentary with someone posh on the Human Centipede disc, it could squeeze by?

[antnield]

The Human Centipede Comes to the UK's Scariest Attraction for Halloween. From the press release...

The UK’s scariest attraction will be teaming up with one of the world’s most controversial cult horror films for its most terrifying Halloween ever - featuring a live human centipede.

The London Bridge Experience & London Tombs have teamed up with the director of The Human Centipede - Tom Six, and its UK distributor Bounty Films - to recreate the terror of the film to give visitors the scare of their life.

As part of the London Bridge-based attraction’s Halloween programme PhoboPhobia ‘After Dark Extreme Scare – The Human Centipede’- will feature sets recreating the horror of the film, including the evil Dr Heiter’s laboratory, clips from the film and audio as well as the main attraction - a live human centipede.

The Human Centipede(First Sequence) film will also be screened but will only be available to a select few and only those booking early via Ticketmaster will get the chance to watch the film. The film features a mad doctor who kidnaps and mutilates a trio of tourists in order to turn them into a human centipede.

The film has a cult following and has become extremely controversial with its sequel – The Human Centipede 2 being banned in Britain and labelled as the ‘sickest movie of all time’.




The film’s Director Tom Six, who visited the attraction recently, said: “I went through the London Tombs and I loved every second of it. The actors really scare the hell out of you and the sets you go through are amazing and could easily compete with the best horror film sets.”

James Kislingbury, General Manger of the London Bridge Experience & London Tombs, said: “This is going to be our scariest Halloween ever, it will be a spectacular event and our scarers will form the live human centipede, they are all so keen to be involved that we have had to hold a ballot.”

‘After Dark Extreme Scare – The Human Centipede’ - Halloween’s Most Hellish Event will be running from 7pm to late from October 27th to 31st.

As well as the ‘After Dark Extreme Scare’ in the London Tombs - during the day visitors will be able to learn the ‘History Behind The Horror’ – exploring 2000 years of London Bridge’s dark Halloween history – travel back in time and be taken on a journey led by first-class actors and stunning special effects.

After the London Bridge Experience you will be given the option to descend into the London Tombs – winner of the ‘Best Year Round Scare Attraction’ at the Screamie Awards for the past three years.

A guardian angel tour is also available for younger guests allowing them to experience the tombs in a less scary format for those visiting during the daytime show.

‘History Behind The Horror’ is running from October 17 to November 1 from 10am to 6pm.

Tickets for both events are limited so early booking is essential. Tickets are £23 for adults, £21 concessions – OAPs and Students; £17 for Under 18s – although the age limit for ‘After Dark Extreme Scare – The Human Centipede’ is not recommended for under 16s.

The attraction will also be running the first Halloween Buried Alive Ball at a separate location from October 27 to 29 from 6pm – featuring a visit to the attraction before a meal and dancing.

To book priority tickets via Ticketmaster visit http://www.thelondonbridgeexperience.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; or for group rates and bookings call Yasmin Mears on: 0845 301 0996

[MichaelB]

A laudable idea, only slightly undermined by the fact that The Human Centipede wasn't the tiniest bit scary - at least from the viewer's perspective.

Now if they kidnapped visitors at random and forced them to become part of a human centipede...