By As you may remember, shock film The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence was originally banned in the UK based on its absolutely disgusting description alone. Of course, the BBFC pretty much guaranteed a wide audience for the film by banning it. I mean, when you heard the movie was so gross that the UK wanted to keep it away from the public, didn’t it make you want to see the movie a little more? It certainly inspired a few of our writers to seek it out. Allistair wrote a glowing review last week, and the majority of Flixist LA went to see it last night.
One of the things we noticed was that the film was missing a couple of scenes mentioned in the description and in Allistair’s review. This isn’t to say that it wasn’t still gruesome, of course; if we weren’t such fatties, we probably wouldn’t have been able to eat last night. Still, when you’re preparing for one scene in particular that you know you won’t handle well and it never shows up, something just feels…off.
Apparently, while our version had a few missing pieces, the UK version has even more, with a total of two minutes and 37 seconds (32 different cuts) removed from the film in order for it to meet BBFC standards. This isn’t the first time a film has been majorly edited or banned outright in the UK. For a culture that’s usually a lot more open than ours, they sure do dislike sharing a lot of films with the public.
Details of the cuts made in the movie can be seen below the jump. You know, in case you’re worried about spoilers.
[Via /Film]If you’re too lazy to click on the above link about the BBFC banning The Human Centipede II in the first place, here is their reasoning for banning the film, complete with a long list of the horrifying things found in the original version of the film.
The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the ‘human centipede’of the title. Although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at ‘18’. 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 Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice. It is the Board’s view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above.
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 brutalised, 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.
It is the Board’s carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board’s Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
The cut I saw of the film did not include the dick-wrapped-in-barbed-wire rape scene, which is the one I was really worried about. That is the only one I noticed was missing. The New York Times says that the UK cut of the film took out “scenes of sexual and sexualized violence, sadistic violence and humiliation, and a child presented in an abusive and violent context.” From that, I imagine that the barbed-wire rape was removed again, and possibly the sandpaper masturbation as well. If you read Allistair’s review, you might also remember mention of a scene with “crushed fetuses,” which sounds like it’s also getting the boot, so to speak. Also included in the cuts are the “graphic sight of a man’s teeth being removed with a hammer” and the “graphic sight of lips being stapled to naked buttocks.”
Oh, come on, BBFC. Can’t handle some lips-stapled-on-butthole scenes? You’d think they hadn’t been on the internet before.