Cinematic Violence: Can Anything Be Justified?

[mfunk9786]

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...

Hey, you stole my idea! *masturbates with sandpaper*

[MichaelB]

The first full review of The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (at least that I've spotted, anyway).

It actually sounds a fair bit more entertaining (if that's the word) than the first film, which I found tedious in the extreme.

[colinr0380]

Could it be the antithesis to Be Kind, Rewind?

(I can only imagine that there must be a European attitude to nerds at play here, since sweaty, repulsive, socially awkward nerds doing unmentionable things also feature as the protagonists of the Belgian Lucker The Necrophagous and Buttgereit's Schramm)

[MichaelB]

A Serbian Film's classification in Australia has just been withdrawn (link is to a PDF of the official Australian government press release) - which means that it can't be sold, hired or advertised within Australia.

Where's David Hare when you need him?

[John Edmond]

As people have noted this is a fairly suss call.

[MichaelB]

The Guardian on The Human Centipede II:

The generally enthusiastic opening night crowd at Fantastic Fest seemed, well, pretty bored with Tom Six's latest homage to the human rectum. Several of the more nauseating moments, specifically the rape scene, were met with mild exclamations of revulsion from audience members, but overall the pervading mood in the room was that of simple boredom. This is an audience that championed films like Martyrs, A Serbian Film, and (yes) The Human Centipede, but the ceaseless deluge of bodily functions starts to feel less like a confrontational film and more like the project of a poop-obsessed 14-year-old.

[JakeB]

Wow. That was a pretty terrible article.

[knives]

Really, because I thought it was kind of grand. When things amount to being so poorly performed that even the worst acts suddenly turn blase you know you've failed and that sort of critical look is nearly the only direct one you can take with these sort of pictures. Does it succeed in it's intention to shock? No, well than the conversation can end there because the film is just that bad (all of this is basically what I got out of the article).

[colinr0380]

What I got was an hour of sweaty boredom and then 30 minutes of grungy, filthy, visceral misery. A plotless, ugly, grating mess that exists for pure shock value and nothing else.

It makes it sound a little like Driller Killer! (I'm sure similar arguments were made at the time about that film!)

Though I hasten to add that I do not really intend to compare Tom Six to Abel Ferrara in artistic terms, at least on the basis of the first centipede film. Though I did kind of like the way that the first film's marketing harkened back to the glory days of over the top hyperbole and concepts which cause maximum impact at the advertising stage and then turn out to be incredibly tedious in their final execution.

[tarpilot]

There is something both endearing and unsettling in these being my generation's Tingler

[colinr0380]

Twitch has another review, plus poster and theatrical trailer, prominently featuring the BBFC advice at the end.

I find it very interesting that while the film was shot entirely in the UK, that country's residents will not be able to see it anytime in the foreseeable future. The reason is the greatest of ironies, it seemingly violates the Video Nasty legislation, which is designed to protect viewers from films that could be harmful to their psyches, which is exactly what the film is about.

This actually reminds me of quite an impressive little British horror film that came before the current torture trend but which works to critique a lot of its trends - Boy Meets Girl. That film apparently intended to critique the way the BBFC was more lenient on Hollywood fantasy violence by actively trying to flount some of the BBFC's big no-nos, such as the violent use of household implements. Which of course immediately got the film banned for a number of years! I think it may be released uncut now however.

[R0lf]

There is something both endearing and unsettling in these being my generation's Tingler

We can be thankful that unlike Tingler there is no audience interaction gimmick for Centipede.

[zedz]

There is something both endearing and unsettling in these being my generation's Tingler

We can be thankful that unlike Tingler there is no audience interaction gimmick for Centipede.

As long as you stay away from the concession stand.

[antnield]

Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) Granted 18 Certificate in the UK:

Eureka Entertainment is pleased to announce the forthcoming release of the
controversial horror film The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence).

Ian Sadler, Sales Director for Eureka Entertainment, Bounty Films’ UK distributor
said:

“We are really pleased that after nearly 4 months of detailed discussion and debate,
we have been able to reach an agreement with the BBFC and to produce a very
viable cut of the film which will both excite and challenge its fans. Naturally we have
a slight disappointment that we have had to make cuts, but we feel that the storyline
has not been compromised and the level of horror has been sustained.”

Further details of our plans for the UK theatrical and DVD release will be announced
early next week.

[MichaelB]

Oh God - not UK theatrical as well! That means I'll probably have to watch the damn thing.

[Duncan Hopper]

Oh God - not UK theatrical as well! That means I'll probably have to watch the damn thing.

One of the disadvantages of being part of the 'UK press cabal'

[antnield]

Oh God - not UK theatrical as well! That means I'll probably have to watch the damn thing.

You'll be grateful of the cuts then - the experience will be exactly two minutes and 37 seconds shorter.

[MichaelB]

Oh God - not UK theatrical as well! That means I'll probably have to watch the damn thing.

One of the disadvantages of being part of the 'UK press cabal'

Actually, I'm very grateful for the fact that I can usually pick and choose what I watch, and I am of course free to turn down any such commission - though in practice I never do unless I genuinely can't attend the screening.

But in this particular instance I reviewed the first film for Sight & Sound, so there's every chance I'll be asked to tackle the second. And if it's been cut, I should probably dig out an uncut copy and watch that too, as I did with A Serbian Film last year.

[antnield]

BBFC Press Release:

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.”

In its original letter of 6 June refusing classification, the Board made clear that it was open to the distributor to attempt cuts. The cuts which have now been made are, in the Board’s judgement, necessary if the film is to be classified.

[colinr0380]

I obviously stand corrected on my musings earlier in the thread that appealing the classification decision would not change anything. Although I wonder if the BBFC are also trying to in some ways defuse the 'banned in the UK!' tag that the film is gleefully using in its advertising by passing a heavily cut version.

I also assume that what is apparently going to be the far worse third film in the series is going to be the same kind of material as this second one, just in colour rather than black and white.

Oh God - not UK theatrical as well! That means I'll probably have to watch the damn thing.

While I'm sure the review that Michael will (inevitably) write will be fair and balanced, I have to admit to more wanting to read the 'collapse of Western civilisation' rant that I'm sure Christopher Tookey will have about the film if he ever gets subjected to it!

And here are some notes by Kim Newman on the unedited version:

Thanks to the BBFC’s refusal of a certificate, this has become a hot button movie, with certain incidentals described out of context well before anyone had a chance to see the whole picture. Yes, there’s a sandpaper masturbation scene (far less uncomfortable than, say, the genital mutilation in Antichrist) and a moment when Martin wraps barbed wire around his dick and rapes his creation (or is he trying to get stuck to it). Oddly, the most horrid and questionable element – the mistreatment of a pregnant woman and the cruel disposal of her newborn baby – has not been cited; in any case, it’s not done as explicitly or unpleasantly as the pregnancy/baby abuse of Dream Home or A Serbian Film. It uses so many distancing effects – black and white cinematography, a plot which ignores so many questions it can’t be taken as objective reality, cartoonishly awful supporting characters (like something out of early John Waters) – that its horrors are sick-funny rather than gruelling-unpleasant. There are iffy elements – the depiction of a learning difficulties adult as a malicious monster, in particular – and it was never going to win good citizenship awards, but it’s not an all-out atrocity. A significant improvement over part one, genuinely building on – and critiquing – the vision of the first film, it’s a solid, interesting picture. Eventually, it’ll be seen.

[domino harvey]

Siskel and Ebert on "Women in Danger" (c. 1980)

[mfunk9786]

I saw The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence tonight. That's all I'm really willing to say. *leaves thread*

[colinr0380]

Siskel and Ebert on "Women in Danger" (c. 1980)

Thanks for pointing me towards that site domino! I'm glad that they are putting up some of the older videos now. Although sadly the only thing I really agree on from that show is that Halloween is by far the best of the slasher film cycle (there is a strange kind of hypocrisy going on there as well in lingering on the acts of violence towards the attacker in that closet sequence while primly cutting away from the other clips shown, something which strangely makes Halloween seem more violent!) The show does unfortunately ignore the other parent of the slasher genre, Black Christmas, but then I don't think they would have liked it much anyway, since that does just involve women being killed!

In terms of the films cited in the episode I don't really have any issues with When A Stranger Calls or Friday The 13th (Big shock: in a horror film people run around trying to escape from being killed! Bigger shock: usually filmmakers prefer to show women in those situations than men). Especially since Friday the 13th, for all of its sex=death prudery, has always been an equal opportunities murder machine, killing both men and women (they don't say that the final slow motion clip from Friday the 13th is a lead into the credits sequence, which is perhaps reason for the lingering on the woman screaming).

I think that the issues that Siskel and Ebert have in that show are more to do with the move from fantasy creatures towards the more 'realistic' axe-wielding maniac or psychopath on the other end of the telephone film, something which could conceivably take place compared to something like The Wolf Man. The issue of women in peril also seems to implicitly suggest that it would be ok if it were just men in that situation, which itself seems reductive.

I would certainly stand up for I Spit On Your Grave as being far more gruelling than entertaining, with a lengthy 'revenge' portion for the indignities that Jennifer suffers. Also watching that clip of Camille Keaton being terrorised in the boat is also interesting in the way that she is never a passive victim, while the violent males are more overgrown, stupid children who eventually deserve their fate. The section where Ebert talks about a 'supposedly normal' (i.e. well dressed and in their 50s) audience member's response is a good instruction in really not holding a film responsible for the audience's reaction to it, which is just something that is more pronounced in a horror film (and which presumably is part of what the Human Centipede sequel is clunkily trying to suggest in its use of its obsessed lead character).

I also think that a couple of films that Siskel and Ebert lay into here are actually surprisingly good. For example The Howling is one of the few werewolf films to feature a female protagonist (although I presume that the opening sequence of terrorisation of the character in the sex shop is part of what placed it in this company), two female protagonists if you count the assistant who does most of the investigating before falling foul of the werewolves herself (which is the problem with a horror film - even if you make a character into one of the major players, they are still usually going to have to be horribly killed, whatever their gender, at some point! If only to isolate things down to one single main character for the climax, which is what Halloween does. And even then the horror genre is one of the few where even the single main character may not survive in the end!)

I also wonder whether Siskel and Ebert are particularly concerned about the way that some horror films are folding in extremely troubling material into their plots, such as the way that The Boogey Man is tackling memories of child abuse underneath its supernatural surface. Or the way that Don't Go In The House (which Stephen Thrower gives a very good defence of in the Video Nasties: Definitive Guide collection) is in the Ed Gein mould of being a portrait of a disturbed young man (from everything I have heard about that film, it does not sound as if it is in the 'entertainment' mould of a Friday The 13th, but something much more depressing). Its plot seems tailor made for a 'ban this sick film' rant but it is apparently a very effective film (plus it is an early film by cinematographer Oliver Wood - it comes after Wood did the cinematography for The Honeymoon Killers but still early on in a career that moved on to Die Hard 2, the three Bourne films, Fantastic Four, Switchback etc)

However you do have the obvious knock offs mentioned by Siskel and Ebert, such as the Jamie Lee Curtis starring Prom Night and Terror Train. He Knows You're Alone is not much cop either (it is most notable for being the film debut of Tom Hanks!) But even these still show some moment of flare (particularly in the costumes of the disco dancing Prom Night!) which manage to elevate them over their far emptier, and thus much more problematically soulless, contemporary remakes.

[domino harvey]

I think that site is actually a fan-run YouTube of sorts, but they're putting up some fascinating videos-- I thoroughly enjoyed watching their post Oscar nominations show for '89, where they (quite rightly, it turns out) argue that in twenty years, Do the Right Thing and Roger and Me will be remembered more fondly and be more relevant than any of the other nominees in the Best Picture category. The anger on the part of Ebert re: Do the Right Thing is really worth experiencing!

As far as their "Women in Danger" special, I (unsurprisingly) agree with their central thesis, but they admittedly make some uneven arguments. I think films like Friday the 13th, where we go into the killer's POV for what amounts to pornography capped with an ejaculation of blood, are doing exactly as Siskel and Ebert claim. However, I also am willing to admit that there are audience members who are able to put themselves not in the role of the killer but that of the victim-- it just seems counter-productive to the methods employed by the filmmakers of these sort of films! I understand their arguments in favor of Halloween, that it gets a pass because it doesn't place the killer in the audience surrogate role, but then they lose me with the very dangerous suggestion that aesthetics can help differentiate between a "right" and "wrong" slasher film-- I hadn't seen all of the films invoked by the pair, but none of the clips shown were even remotely inept from a cinematic standpoint. Indeed, even the clips from a film I've seen and don't care for, Friday the 13th, showcase impressive first-person camera work and professional construction, not exactly amateur hour! Also, I think it's obvious that they were judging a few films they hadn't in fact seen yet-- if I'm not mistaken, Siskel actually went on to give the Howling a good review! And their worst fears were realized, because the Boogeyman looks fascinating!

[colinr0380]

I just watched the Best of 82 show in which Siskel chooses Skolimowski's Moonlighting as his number 1 pick of the year (Ebert has it at number 8!)

The Boogey Man is pretty interesting - I don't know if this goes against the thesis of the show somewhat but the lead actress Suzanna Love was actually married to Ulli Lommel at the time and due to being a Dupont heiress actually helped finance the film in which she was being terrorised! (Her brother also acts in the film as well) According to the introduction on the Video Nasties set (because this was one of those films banned, although only briefly, in the UK), Lommel actually moved to the US when he married Love, previously having worked a lot as an actor in Rainer Werner Fassbinder's films (he is on the commentary track for Whity), before becoming a director himself.

He is probably best known for The Tenderness of the Wolves about a real serial killer in Germany during World War One, Fritz Harmann (who was one of the cases that M took details from for its serial killer).

After the discussion about whether there are any sequels to films which take place in a meta-world from the original, The Boogey Man II is perhaps a great example of another film which does just that. Apparently the story was that Lommel did not want to do a sequel at all, so Revenge of the Boogey Man is all about a reticent director being cajoled into making a story that took place in the first film ("Brian De Palma spent $18 million on that bomb of his, Blow Out...You could make fifty movies for that"), which of course inevitably causes the murders to start again. It is perhaps more reminiscent of Wes Craven's New Nightmare than Human Centipede II though - and it is terrible because Lommel apparently really wasn't interested in the material of the sequel at all (he even has his name removed from the credits)!

The sequel got banned in the Video Nasty panic too, but likely it was because about half of the film is material from the first film told in flashback form!