The Human Centipede II UK release longer than US VOD!

[RoXX0rz]

So I've heard that the actual UK release of The Human Centipede II is actually more complete than the US Video-on-Demand version and possibly their theatrical release too. It apparently features more of the "barbware rape" scene AND the "sandpaper" scene too.

After buying and watching the UK release of the movie, I'm actually surprised at how much content in the movie was left intact. It appears the BBFC only took snippets from each sequence, with the exeception of the murder of the newborn baby. Not in anyway saying the movie should be censored more, but I think I'll stick with my UK release even if there does be an uncut release somewhere else. Even with the cuts, and censorship, the movie has not lost much of the "extreme" content, IMO. I expected a lot more to be missing than what actually was, especially after it being rejected.

[Angel]

Yes I've seen the VOD version. There are less cuts than in the UK DVD. Most of the cuts made by the BBFC are intact in this version. The UK DVD is only more complete in the sandpaper masturbation and the barbed wire rape. In fact this latter scene is completely removed in the VOD version. But the defecation, lips being stapled to buttocks, graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals mouth, teeth being removed with hammer and the new born baby being killed are intact.

The latter cut is somewhat puzzling.

[RoXX0rz]

I can't see the grounds on why they'd (the bbfc) have to cut the teeth being removed by the hammer. It's not too nice to watch, but that's no reason to cut. Especially since they've passed more graphic violence in other movies. Personally I think some companies let the BBFC run wild with cuts that maybe wouldn't have to be imposed if they appealed them to the VAC.

And I also have seen the US VOD version, even though the VOD version has all the smaller cuts intact made in the UK version, I still prefer the UK DVD. The cuts don't really ruin the film, IMO. Of course I don't agree with the censorship anyway.

[Demoncrat]

Thought this was common knowledge?
am still staggered about the BBFC's "volte face" about this film.

But would never willingly buy an uncut one (im an adult etc), as this will only diminish the screamingly OTT "offensiveness", which is this film's only redeeming feature

comedy of the decade!!

[Angel]

Originally Posted by RoXX0rz

I can't see the grounds on why they'd (the bbfc) have to cut the teeth being removed by the hammer. It's not too nice to watch, but that's no reason to cut. Especially since they've passed more graphic violence in other movies. Personally I think some companies let the BBFC run wild with cuts that maybe wouldn't have to be imposed if they appealed them to the VAC.

And I also have seen the US VOD version, even though the VOD version has all the smaller cuts intact made in the UK version, I still prefer the UK DVD. The cuts don't really ruin the film, IMO. Of course I don't agree with the censorship anyway.

It was cut on the grounds of potential harm to viewers (VRA) which is the same reason for cutting any violence in an 18. As to the question of whether the scenes in the film really are capable of causing harm to viewers is entirely academic, because clearly the BBFC believe they are and they're the guys wielding the scissors and as far as they are concerned they are just doing their job.

Yes it's highly unusual these days for the BBFC to cut violence at the 18 level, this film really has proven to be an exceptional case. Of course the BBFC have never said that under no circumstances would they ever cut violence at 18 again, so I think it's inevitable that we will see cuts like this from time to time, although certainly not very often. Once every 10 years perhaps.

All the violent scenes cut from Human Centipede 2 would be acceptable in other less exploitative/more serious works. Because the BBFC are not just looking at individual scenes and judging whether they maybe harmful or not, they are looking at the film as a whole. And unfortunately the film with its focus on a man who clearly derived sexual pleasure torturing his victims was deemed unacceptable.

Unfortunately I never got around to asking the BBFC what exactly were the OPA cuts to the film but I believe they were to the sandpaper masturbation and the enforced defecation. Having seen the uncut version recently I cannot see these cuts being waived in the near future. Did I think these scenes were obscene? Yes.

As far as the barbed wire rape is concerned? This scene above all never stood a chance in hell of getting passed the BBFC. Any chance they may pass this in the next 10/20 years? NO way.

Well the company were going to appeal the rejection to VAC, soon after, the BBFC proposed a number of cuts, which the company accepted. As to what would have happened if they took the cuts to VAC is something we will never know. Although I'm pretty sure they too would never accept the uncut version.

Yes they rarely appeal to VAC, I think this is because they feel in most cases they wouldn't win and it's also quite costly.

Nice to know that you have an interest in the subject of censorship, RoXXOrz. Sadly these days there seems to be little interest in the subject.

[Crimson Blade]

I don't think that in this day and age the BBFC should be cutting anything at 18 that isn't breaking criminal law. And is there anything that really would've breached the OPA? Weren't those scenes simulations?

[Angel]

They may well have been simulations, Crimson Blade, but that would not be a mitigating factor. The BBFC took advice from the OPU/CPS that the film as a whole could "corrupt and deprave" at least some of its audience so it was up to them to remove any obsenity.

[Daemonia]

I do understand that the BBFC sometimes have to tread a thin line and it's not always easy to get it right, but 9 times out of 10 they do, something you couldn't have said of them not so long ago. So I applaud that, just to be clear.

On the other hand, I'm not sure what the breaches to the OPA would have been. The OPA does state that in terms of obscenity it has to take into consideration the intended audience and whether they would be depraved or corrupted by a work. Or is the argument that the film is intended for a depraved audience? If so, the depravation is already there, the film didn't cause it.

But here's a question, and I ask it in all seriousness - can anyone here say that a film they have watched has depraved and corrupted them? I can't think of a single instance where a fictional work has corrupted me - as in, destroyed my moral character. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just that I've never encountered anyone who has become depraved or corrupted by watching a fictional work of cinema.

I mean, when we break it down like that, has a film corrupted you, made you immoral, blurred your lines of acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, the more ridiculous it becomes. After watching a Giallo do you find terrorising and killing people acceptable? After watching a Saw film do you believe that torturing people to teach them a lesson is a valid course of action?

Of course, the examples I mention aren't considered obscene. But my point still stands. Would HC2 corrupt me? Or anyone? Does a fictional film really have the incredible power of altering a person's moral standpoint? Because, in effect, that's the argument.

[Demoncrat]

Agree.
Plus it's in B&W!!! that'd turn off most casual viewers in my experience, the BBFC are still a load of muddle heads.
And isn't the violence in Saw "premeditated" to the nth degree anyway???

[Daemonia]

Indeed. I can't see how HC2 would offend the intended audience for this work. I guess we're all depraved sickos. The films did it to us. I watched a horror film and suddenly found all my morality had mysteriously vanished.

To say a fictional film can 'deprave or corrupt' is tantamount to saying viewers are actually condoning the behaviour of the characters within that film. I'm not sure I can agree with that line of thinking. So if you watch a WW2 war film you condone the actions of Nazi Germany? Or if you watch Die Hard you condone terrorism and hostage taking? I don't quite follow the BBFC on this one. What the BBFC might consider glorification others might call confrontionalism. And shouldn't film, at times, be just that - confrontational?