Human Centipede 2 vs Salo vs The BBFC

I always told myself that if a topic came up that suited it, this blog (and the original VNAW) would occasionally contain articles other than reviews. After only 89 weeks, such a topic has finally come up.

The bias (in my opinion) showed by the BBFC in the way "art" films are treated differently to more mainstream Horror films prompted me to e-mail the BBFC's press department.

Rather than editorialize, |I will present my email, and their reply, in full. I will save my opinion of the exchange for the comments section; where you are welcome to join me.

Dear Ms Anderson, I run a blog dedicated to banned, previously banned, and controversial movies. The subject this week is Pier Paolo Pasolini's Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. While I personally found the movie repugnant in almost every conceivable way, I never the less applaud the BBFCs desision, in 2000, to pass the work uncut; In a free society, poor taste is no excuse to curb freedom of expression. With this thought, as specifically the content of Salò in mind, I was hoping that someone at the BBFC could take a few moments to consider the footage exhumed, at the Board's insistence, from Tom Six's Human Centipede 2: Final Sequence; Bering in mind that, like "poor taste", "artistic merit" is entirely subjective. I would be grateful if you could explain to our readers why two movies, seemingly so similar in content, have received such different treatment. I look forward to your reply.

Dear Will, Thank you for your email. With regards to Salo and Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence). The BBFC website provides BBFCinsight or case studies for most films, explaining why they received the classification they did. We are often asked to compare two works and their classification but this is not something we practice since every film work must be classified against the guidelines as a unique work in its' own right. You can find a case study on the classification of Salo at http://website.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/salo120-days-sodom The press release explaining the reasons for refusing to give a rating to Human Centipede 2 can be found here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-rejects-human-centipede-ii-full-sequence A press release regarding the decision to pass Human Centipede 2 with cuts can be found at: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/about-bbfc/media-centre/bbfc-has-awarded-18-classification-cut-version-human-centipede-ii The BBFCinsight for Human Centipede 2 is also available here: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/releases/human-centipede-ii-full-sequence-2011 Note that Salo was first submitted before the BBFC introduced its' Classification Guidelines, although even once these were introduced in 2000 (following the first large scale public consultation exercise) the film was still regarded as neither illegal nor harmful within the terms of the new Guidelines and therefore the BBFC agreed to classify the film 18 uncut for cinema exhibition. Human Centipede 2 was submitted under the 2009 Classification Guidelines and you'll notice that unlike Salo, the press release states that "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." I hope this is helpful in completing your article Kind regards, Catherine

Salo - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

I'm at a bit of a loss this week as to how exactly to review this movie as I have no want to give a blow-by-blow account of it, thats for sure.  The fact I am feeling more than a little ill today also would make me want to avoid even thinking about it, never mind reviewing it.

So, what can I say.  Having read a bit about the movie, it seems that the absolute and utter depravity we see on screen from start to finish is in actual fact a very political message about facism, with the 4 main characters (a bishop, a president, a duke and a magistrate) representing different sections of our society.  The bishop - religion, the president - political leaders, the magistrate - the legal system and the duke - nobility.  Well that was all very much lost on me I'm afraid.  To me it just appeared to be an excuse to be shocking, to show as much depravity as possible and get away with it under the usual screen of proclaiming it as 'art' with an important message.  Bollocks!  It truely felt to me, like a few people sat in a room and wrote a list of what they could get away with depicting onscreen.



Now before I go into the small amount of detail my stomach permits today, I will say, although I hated this movie and really wonder why anyone would WANT to watch it nevermind enjoy watching it, I realise every movie has its audience (it would be a very boring world if we were all the same), so I don't think the movie should be banned, I am amazed however that it is not.  As Will stated to me, Human Centipede 2 has similar (yet nowhere near as shocking) scenes which were cut and the movie was banned under the obscene publications act... how is this possible?  It seems with the 'art' umbrella you can get away with an awful lot.

So to the movie... well the story itself is minimal and quite hard to follow.  The 4 main characters I already detailed make an agreement to marry each others daughters as a start in the quest to make real whatever perversions they can imagine.  The movie which follows is basically those perversions carried out.

We have sexual torture, scalping, eyeball gouging, burning of genitals with candles, defecation, urination in mouths and on faces, rape, torture, general degradation.... what more is there to say really.

In one noteworthy scene a wedding is taking place between a young boy (bizarrely dressed as the bride) and one of the perverts.  The young women have been ordered not to defecate for some time before the feast as they are to perform on the day for everyones delectation... Several young women walk out with silver platters piled high with faeces which everyone proceeds to get tucked into (some with a lot of gusto it has to be said).  This in itself is repugnant, but the scene of the young women beforehand who was reprimanded for having a poo in her chamber pot a day early as she 'couldn't hold it' was just twisted... they even examined her and realised she'd had the audacity to clean herself after!!  What AM I watching?

In another scene a young girl is forced to urinate on someones face and in their mouth... okaaaaaay.

An idea of the degradation is shown where a group of the naked young men and women (they are all naked throughout the movie) are shown kneeling down, bums in air, head on the ground to be examined by these perverts by way of a torch being shone where the sun aint supposed to shine to see who has the most beautiful backside!

Nearing the end of the movie we are shown scene after scene of torture and mutilation is shown through the eyes of the 4 perverts who are watching through binoculars at what they have created.  I was just a bit in shock that this movie has been passed at all!  It is without question, the sickest piece of movie making i have had the misfortune to sit through.

The political message was lost on me completely.  It just appeared to be a load of shock elements using the guise as 'art' to get away with as much as they could.

I can't recommend this at all.  In fact I have no idea why anyone would have a desire to watch this or would sit through it all if not for the purpose of a challenge or review... AVOID!

Salo - Will's Review

Wow.

That was without question the most depraved thing I have ever seen; and I include "A Serbian Film" in that.

There was a point in this movie, during the films 3rd segment (it has 4, each given an on screen caption)  that inspired from me I think the biggest reaction I have ever had to a piece of fiction, and I'll get to that in good time; I wasn't very far into the 2nd segment before I was wondering how this film is even legal.

Now, don't get me wrong; I absolutely think it should be legal; I strongly believe that ANY faked activity should be allowed, no matter how offensive I may personally find it, but it is a sad fact that English law does not agree, and we still have an Obscene Publications Act which can be applied to fiction.

In fact once again, as with Week 83's Antichrist,  the prejudices against horror and towards "Art Film" shines through. How this can be passed uncut, while similar scenes were trimmed from week 63's Human Centipede 2, I cannot comprehend.

****SPOILERS****





As I say, the film is split into 4 sections; in the first "Anteinferno", 4 men (referred to only as  duke, magistrate, bishop and  president) agree to marry each others daughters, in order to bind their group together. The daughters are never seen or heard about again. Then the 4 men, along with some soldiers who work for them, abduct 18 young people (9 of each sex). They are then taken to a mansion where the daily routine is explained.

Each day, The 4 men, the soldiers, the prisoners and 4 prostitutes are to gather in the "Orgy Room", Where the prostitutes are to tell depraved tales to 'inspire' the men. The prisoners are then to act out anything that comes to the men's minds. Any disobedience will be punished, and any religious act is punishable by death.

The 2nd part of the film, "The Circle of Manias", is arguable the most depraved (although not the most stomach churning) segment. The prostitutes' stories in this section seem to center mostly around being covered in seamen. The lords' reenactments (thankfully?)  do not follow this pattern; however the way the captives are treated is vile. As well as the rape which is already pretty much a given, they are humiliated and treated as subhuman constantly - not only by the lords and prostitutes, but also by the soldiers. At one point for instance the girls serve a meal to everyone else; they are naked (all of the captives are naked throughout most of the movie), one of the soldiers spits in one of the girls, which causes riotous laughter, she is then raped anally (until the president decides that it's his turn to be sodomized by the offending soldier). later all of the slaves are put on leads and made to act like dogs (during this, one is fed some food into witch a pin has been inserted, with bloody and cringe inducing results).

I can't actually put into words just how offensive the degradation in this segment is... y'all know I'm not easily shocked, but this is truly harrowing. At one point, a girl invokes the name of god, hoping to be killed as per the rules, and is devastated only to have her name added to a book. Throughout the movie, any who resist or break the rules are added to this book.

When the on-screen caption for the next segment is displayed, the viewer instantly knows that they are in trouble, because the 3rd section is called "The Circle of Shit"

The prostitutes stories refer to shit eating, and it isn't long before one of the lords takes a dump on the floor and hands a slave a spoon... suffice to say i threw up in my mouth a little.

The president orders a 'wedding' between 2 of the slaves, the girl is left naked and the boy dressed as a girl. The wedding feast is the most nauseating thing I have ever watched. Huge piles of shit are brought out and served  to everyone. The Lords (and even some of the soldiers) eat the excrement with gusto - so much gusto that it fails to be repelling... it simply looks like what it more than likely is... people eating chocolate mousse. The acting on the part of the 'bride' as he is force fed however, really does sell the stuff as shit. I did actually throw up at this point (a movie watching first for me!).

You know you are in a bad place when the final segment of a movie is called "The Circle of Blood", and you are relieved.

The slaves are interrogated, and one by one turn on each other, revealing rule braking, their names added to the book.

Finally, 3 of the men watch from windows with binoculars, while the Bishop, along with the soldiers, finally kill everyone who made it into the punishment book, by way of branding, hanging, scalping, eye gouging, castration etc.

Overall, it is, as I think I have made clear, the most repugnant movie I have ever seen. I'm glad that it's legally available; I see no reason for any sane person to want to watch (much less enjoy) this movie, but everything in it is faked and consensual, and there is no reason for any "free" society to ban it. "poor taste" is subjective, after all.

That said, as I mentioned in my opening, I get the distinct impression that the only reason it is legally available is that it is somehow supposed top be "artistic", and "well made" (apparently it has something important to say about fascism too). To this, I say "bollocks", "art" is every bit as subjective as "poor taste", and therefore neither is a reason to ban, or allow, anything.

Besides which, the only thing I classed as particularly arty here was the Danté reference in the segment titles.


The political message in non existent - if not for the fact it was set in wartime Italy there would be no reason to even consider fascism  As far as "well made" goes? the very 70's costumes in the wedding scene, along with the oddly grey fake flesh during the torture scenes beg to differ.

Add to all of this that the movie has no real "end" to speak of, and I'd encourage you to stay away. This is one of those that we watched... so you don't have to!

Week 89 - Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom

Alternate Titles : Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma

Year: 1975

Reviews / Author Comments due: 02/02/2013

Reason for Inclusion: Banned for over 20 years, Subject of a police raid when shown at a London cinema club (where BBFC ratings are not required, but obscenity laws still apply)

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2000

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.