Mon 6 Jun 11, 6:44 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
  |
Whilst mindlessly following links I ended up here
http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/uk_nat...
|
The UK's movie ratings body has taken the unusual step of refusing outright to classify a new horror film - and warned there was a real risk of harm to viewers.
The film is a sequel to last year's stomach-churning Human Centipede about a mad scientist who grafts three kidnap victims together.
But the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has ruled no amount of cuts would allow them to give the new film - The Human Centipede II - a certificate and said the movie may fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.
The original film was given an 18 certificate and was shown in cinemas, and film festivals, before being released on DVD.
Film distributors had applied to release the follow-up on DVD but its rejection means it cannot be legally supplied in the UK.
The BBFC concluded that the thrust of the film was 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".
It said: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."
The BBFC said the film breached classification guidelines and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers".
The first film caused a stir when it was released last year by Dutch director Tom Six but it was thought to be suitable for adult viewing.
The ratings body said that "although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting, it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film".
|
Interesting that they have cited the Obscene Publications Act rather than the 'extreme porn' one. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Anna List Clinic: The Patient Files - restricted access
|
6 Jun 11, 6:47 PM
OllieVW
3 yrs
 |
First film was pure sick I LOVED IT  Ill get a copy of the new one down the Barras "I dont dream about an easy life. I dream of living long enough in a hard one".
|
6 Jun 11, 6:49 PM
Persia_Porsche
UK(EH), 3 yrs
|
OllieVW wrote:
First film was pure sick I LOVED IT Ill get a copy of the new one down the Barras
|
Yeah, thanks now I know it's out I also know we'll be watching it very very soon
First one was pretty dire but interested to see this one now.
I'm loud and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not.
|
6 Jun 11, 6:52 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
I'm eagerly awaiting news that the BBFC board members have all started to stitch themselves to each other. After all, this is a REAL risk. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Anna List Clinic: The Patient Files - restricted access
|
6 Jun 11, 7:01 PM
Persia_Porsche
UK(EH), 3 yrs
|
Yeah 'real risk of harm to viewers' is very interesting. I'm loud and I'm vulgar, and I wear the pants in the house because somebody's got to, but I am not a monster. I'm not.
|
6 Jun 11, 7:02 PM
skyfox
UK(EH), 5 yrs
 |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
The Human Centipede II - Banned
Whilst mindlessly following links I ended up here
http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/uk_nat...
|
But the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has ruled no amount of cuts would allow them to give the new film - The Human Centipede II - a certificate and said the movie may fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.
...
Film distributors had applied to release the follow-up on DVD but its rejection means it cannot be legally supplied in the UK.
The BBFC concluded that the thrust of the film was 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".
...
The BBFC said the film breached classification guidelines and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers".
|
Interesting that they have cited the Obscene Publications Act rather than the 'extreme porn' one.
|
My understanding of the extreme porn act (at least in Scotland) is that the image/video in question has to already be classified as obscene under the OPA you mention. Normal classified movies do not all under the OPA. Porn you buy in the shops is not under the OPA. Books in bookstores are not under the OPA.
For movies that are classified, clips from those movies may be "extreme porn" and be illegal.
What this implies (though obviously has yet to be tested) is that a copy of this film (including clips from it) may be classified as "extreme porn" because it has already been declared that the image/video is "obscene".
Whilst Ollie may be able to find a copy down at the Barras, I do worry that this may play out exactly how the Scottish Gov. planned: Being unable to get the distributor of bootleg DVDs under normal law, they finally find a film that is "obscene" and sexual, and while they can't prove they were selling/distributing the DVDs, they can still get the guy for possession of the "EP". Result: "Organised crime" is dealt a minor tap, and MacAskill gets to firmly say that EP has now been proven to be linked to organised crime. Isn't that what happened to that Chinese dealer in England just after the law was passed? (I'll let someone else more knowledgeable comment on that.) I don't like it. They probably won't come after Ollie (unless they have too much time on their hands and are doing some sort of sting operation), but the seller could face more than the average fine or whatever they get.
Speaking of the Barras, the last time I was down there some guy said he was looking for people from Glasgow's West End circa 1982. Don't know why.
I am wondering what the "real harm" they're going on about is. Any ideas? The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
|
6 Jun 11, 7:03 PM
natbornsub
UK, 6 yrs
|
Have you seen the first one?
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
The Human Centipede II - Banned
Whilst mindlessly following links I ended up here
http://www.maldonandburnhamstandard.co.uk/uk_nat...
|
The UK's movie ratings body has taken the unusual step of refusing outright to classify a new horror film - and warned there was a real risk of harm to viewers.
The film is a sequel to last year's stomach-churning Human Centipede about a mad scientist who grafts three kidnap victims together.
But the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has ruled no amount of cuts would allow them to give the new film - The Human Centipede II - a certificate and said the movie may fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.
The original film was given an 18 certificate and was shown in cinemas, and film festivals, before being released on DVD.
Film distributors had applied to release the follow-up on DVD but its rejection means it cannot be legally supplied in the UK.
The BBFC concluded that the thrust of the film was 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".
It said: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."
The BBFC said the film breached classification guidelines and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers".
The first film caused a stir when it was released last year by Dutch director Tom Six but it was thought to be suitable for adult viewing.
The ratings body said that "although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting, it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film".
|
Interesting that they have cited the Obscene Publications Act rather than the 'extreme porn' one.
|
|
6 Jun 11, 7:05 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
More detail
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/newsreleases/2011/06/bbfc-...
Ah, here we go.
|
This new work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the 'centipede' idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the 'centipede' idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the 'centipede' idea as the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy.
|
The first one was just a film so that is okay but the sequel is about a man who watched the first one and recreates it. Ob-vi-ous-ly someone who watches the DVD about the DVD will be tempted to re-re-create it and so on and so on and where will THAT leave us all? With our tongues up each others' anuses that's what.
Thank god for the BBFC saving us all from ourselves and each other. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Anna List Clinic: The Patient Files - restricted access
Edited 6 Jun 11, 7:10 PM by Lady_Anna_Bradford
|
6 Jun 11, 7:12 PM
skyfox
UK(EH), 5 yrs
|
Sounds like another one of those "violence and bad things like that are only ok if the bad guy gets his cumuppins in the end" sort of things. Oh dear, there's no moral to the story, so it must be banned.
And they still haven't said what "real" harm is. (On a related note, what is "fanciful" harm?)
Though I must say, the movie does sound dreadful.
Edit:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
The first one was just a film so that is okay but the sequel is about a man who watched the first one and recreates it. Ob-vi-ous-ly someone who watches the DVD about the DVD will be tempted to re-re-create it and so on and so on and where will THAT leave us all? With our tongues up each others' anuses that's what.
Thank god for the BBFC saving us all from ourselves and each other.
|
Yes, because obviously everyone in the UK has the skills and knowledge to attempt it.
*snort*
Yeah, thanks, BBFC. Can I be a doctor now? The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Edited 6 Jun 11, 7:15 PM by skyfox
|
6 Jun 11, 7:16 PM
dageek
UK(LS), 20 mths
|
Empire have a good article. "Jazz hands is not a safe word !"
|
6 Jun 11, 7:19 PM
Thought_Policeman
UK(SO), 2 yrs
|
It's amusing that these people actually think they are still relevant. Thanks to this ban, the only risk that this film will pose to potential viewers will be related to any download quantity limits that their ISP account has.
Also, best publicity ever. I had no interest in the original film, but I now feel almost compelled to watch both. 'I'm gonna go hit the juice bar. You probably wouldn't like it. It's not about living out childhood abuse through degrading sexual encounters. It's more about juice.'
- Stan Smith, American Dad!
|
