Ants in Their Pants

Remember how I said I was going to write about something cheerful. I lied. In fact, I lied so hard that if you are remotely squeamish, you shouldn't read this post. It's about a banned film and will contain graphic descriptions of its content. I don't want to upset people unnecessarily, so if you find the Saw movies more than you can handle, please stop reading now.

The pictures, by the way, act as a safety valve. If the article gets a bit much, just cast your eye over to them and remember that what I'm writing about is fiction, while the pictures are all real life. Comforting, isn't it.

Last week, the British Board of Film Classification took the rare step of refusing a certificate to a film submitted for DVD release. The film in question is Human Centipede II: Full Sequence, a sequel to last year's cult horror. The first film rapidly gained notoriety in horror circles from festival screenings, with word of mouth leaking into the mainstream press, due to its central idea. A mad surgeon kidnaps three people and sews them together, mouth to anus, to form a "human centipede". Those who have seen the film attest that the film is significantly less shocking than that capsule description implies, but there is still capital drawn in the film from the suffering and degradation inflicted on the characters. In particular, the surgeon character takes special pleasure when the inevitable occurs and the man at the front defecates into the mouth of the woman behind, with the latter forced to swallow to stop herself choking to death.

In the film's denouement, investigating police catch the surgeon in a firefight, leaving all sides dead. With the man at the front having cut his throat and bled to death, while the woman at the back has expired from blood poisoning. This leaves the woman in the middle the only survivor, alone and helpless in a house in the middle of nowhere and surgically grafted to two corpses.

The sequel picks up the unusual idea of someone watching the film and being sufficiently aroused by it to want to make his own version. He is able to kidnap 12 people, joins them together as in the first instalment, and films the results.

The reason the BBFC declined to certify the film is the nature of the fan's behaviour. He is shown watching the first film on DVD while masturbating with sandpaper, and later becomes aroused by the coprophagia forced upon his victims. Ultimately, he wraps a length of barbed wire around his penis before raping the woman at the back of the 'centipede'.

These various acts are, according to the BBFC report, portrayed from the obsessive's point of view, meaning that the audience is encouraged to agree with his attitude that people are nothing but vessels for his own entertainment and that the brutalisation and humiliation of his victims is a source of sexual gratification.
I'm sure that you're starting to guess where the problem lies.

More specifically, the BBFC stated that two pieces of legislation are of concern. The Video Recordings Act 1984 states that the effect a work has on its audience must be taken into account, namely whether it is capable of inflicting psychological harm on a viewer, such as by encouraging a dehumanised view of others, and harm on society by extension. The Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 may provide grounds for prosecution under UK law for the distribution of such material. The BBFC elected to play safe and refuse a certificate. The distributor, Bounty Films, has six weeks to lodge an appeal, something it is currently working on.

That's enough facts. This is supposed to be an editorial. I've noticed that opinion online regarding the entire situation has trended towards outrage that the BBFC dares to act in such a censorious manner and restrict what consenting adults are allowed to watch. In fact, this is also the line adopted by Tom Six. He has commented that since the film contains no actual violence, it should be released as it is. He has also made some depressingly unoriginal comments about the UK being repressive, while I noted that others have taken the right-on stance of "yeah, but what's the real horror film? This or BBC Parliament? Enjoy living under the spoonfeeding tyranny, losers!" Mature debate, I'm sure you'll agree.

But amidst all the poseur idiocy, the question of whether or not an artistic work - and it is artistic, whether you like it or not - should be banned if no harm was done in its production. The film has been made to serve a market. A very lucrative one, judging by the amount of straight-to-DVD horror released each week. People don't take kindly to being patronised and being told that something will deprave them, so this reaction is entirely understandable. But at the same time, there is a voice gnawing away inside me saying that this sort of thing is repulsive and shouldn't be allowed. What sort of enjoyment can be gleaned from this? It seems as though it would be entirely prurient, gloating over the horrific ordeal of made-up characters. But if a person wants to watch it, surely the choice should be up to them, no matter how revolting the material.


So while the BBFC cannot afford to allow the public to "make up their own minds", since one of those minds might be unbalanced, it still has be prudent in allowing leeway for doubt and artistic licence. A Serbian Film, released in cinemas and on DVD last year, contains scenes that would make Tom Six blanch, but the film is intended as a political allegory of living in the former Yugoslav republic. In deciding to pass the film with over four minutes of the most extreme material removed, including cuts to a scene in which a newborn baby is anally raped, the board took this into account, citing its own remit to consider the makers' artistic licence and intent. The BBFC appears of the opinion that such an argument applies to Human Centipede II. It may be an artistic work, but that doesn't mean you can do what you like and claim your muse told you to do it.

Another factor in the decision, one which requires fewer examples of nightmare fuel, is whether the BBFC even has a role anymore. This is first time that a film has been refused a certificate since 2009, and then it was for similar reasons, but technology has progressed markedly since even then. Torrenting and the importing of Blu-rays means that those who want to see the film will be able to do so anyway, so the lack of a certificate seems to only be blocking the film from those would either stumble upon it or are not interested in seeing it anyway.

The other, more obvious element, is the date on the Obscene Publications Act. When it was last reformed, it was only three years after the notorious Lady Chatterly's Lover trial, when the prosecuting council asked the jury whether it was the sort of book one would want one's servants to read. This badly needs to be reformed, if only to keep pace with changing social trends. Remember that homosexuality was still a crime in 1964. The BBFC's decision-making process, though guided by regular consultations, is still dependent on Parliament providing boundaries as to what is acceptable, and if these are not kept up to date, any modernisation in the board's thinking is wasted.

The whole thing's a tricky situation. Should it be banned? I don't know. Is there any point in a ban? I don't know. The only thing I'm certain of is that I never, ever want to see it.