The British Board of Film Classification made a bad name for itself back in the 80s. It banned a whole host of low budget graphic horror movies in its self-appointed role as protector of the vulnerable public. It took this role way too seriously and banned so many they ended up as a their own mini-genre - the 'video nasties'. Times changed, so did the BBFC and most of them are no longer banned.
Recently, the BBFC was accused of being up to its old tricks when it declined to give a rating to The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence. Even now, the BBFC do occasionally decline to rate films, but due to the notoriety of The Human Centipede: First Sequence this one is a little more high profile. A full statement has been issued by the BBFC setting out its reasons for the decision. If you're unfamiliar with Tom Six's movie, brace yourself.
The Human Centipede is a horror film in which a mad scientist kidnaps three people and surgically attaches them mouth-to-anus to see if they can survive as a single organism. Not having seen it, I can't really comment of the quality of the film-making, but there is allegedly a scene in which there is some shit-in-mouth action. It made it through the censors uncut with an 18 certificate because stupid, horrid and pointless as it sounds, it's harmless. It's clear the 'scientist' is batshit mental and as the bad guy, gets the appropriate bullet in the head by the time the film is over.
The Human Centipede II goes a little meta, in that there is a guy who gets sexually aroused by the first film and gets his jollies off by watching the 'money shot' repeatedly. The guy gets so obsessed with it that he goes as far as snatching innocent people off the street and building a 'centipede' of his very own. The BBFC statement refers specifically to a scene in which the guy rapes the girl at the tail end with barbed-wire wrapped around his little man. Obviously, this is not a film you'd want to see on a full stomach, but is it really necessary to not rate it? There have been other films comparable in extremity that the BBFC have given a rating to - A Serbian Film is full of incest, rape and murder, sometimes all at once, and includes scenes in which a man is killed by being raped in the head and the rape of a newborn baby.
So what's the difference? Why ban one and not the other? It would appear as though it's to do with the manner in which the material is presented. A Serbian Film, while containing truly horrific imagery presents events in a light that clearly shows that these things are not right and tries to make a point (which I fear was lost somewhat in the controversy surrounding it) about some of the most repulsive things hidden in the dark corners of the nature of humanity. For that reason, with a few minor cuts, the BBFC was able to pass it with an 18 certificate. The Human Centipede, as mentioned above, clearly shows that there is a very mad, very twisted person at the centre of it all who must be, and is, stopped. The Human Centipede II, so I understand it (and I may well be understanding it incorrectly, as I am going only on what the BBFC statement and a few pieces written on Empire online and similar places say), presents the dreadful events through the eyes of the perpetrator with a little more than a touch of sympathy. That is, to suggest that not only is it OK for him to be getting off on it, but that perhaps, if you want to, you can too. Basically, encouraging you to have a wank over the sight of a guy with a barbed-wire-wrapped dick raping a girl while she's being forced to eat someone else's shit. And, while I'm not sure it's exactly harmful as the BBFC infer, there is no doubt that it just ain't quite right.
I do agree that censorship is a very slippery slope indeed, but I don't think this issue is about censorship. I'm sure the BBFC realise it's no longer the 1980s and that declining to certify a film does not equate to a ban. Cinemas can still legally show films that have not been rated, and if someone really wants to see it, they could find a copy online without too much trouble. So instead of it being about censorship, I think the BBFC is coming from a moral standpoint. It's not the events that take place within the film, it's that those events are shown through a certain prism, and it's the prism that the BBFC has a problem with. It's not something that could be solved with a few strategic BBFC-recommended cuts, it's the theme of the film itself. When it comes down to it, the BBFC had little choice in the matter in the end. Films are rated using a finely-crafted predetermined set of guidelines, and the 'this gives us a hard-on, what about you' view the film takes to the events depicted meant it was never going to get by. Those guidelines are partly determined as a result of direct input from the general public - the same people critics accuse the BBFC of unfairly restricting the viewing rights of. Those preset guidelines can sometimes be responsible for some ratings that are not immediately clear - for example, why did American Beauty get an 18 rating? It's relatively mild - even the climactic death scene isn't particularly grisly. It turns out that it's because two characters manage to escape the drudgery of day to day life using the money one of them got from selling drugs, and the BBFC could not be seen to be condoning positive outcomes that result from illegal activity. It seems a little silly, however the BBFC have no choice but to abide by these predetermined guidelines.
In all honesty, you're never gonna get me to see either of The Human Centipede films or A Serbian Film, so issues of censorship and freedom to view aside, I couldn't really care less if they all got banned.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
What is so hard about not being a dick? In which I stick my oar in where it’s probably not wanted. Again.
Gender equality has been a bit of a hot button topic of late. The abortion rights debate continues to rage across the US, and thanks to the certifiable Nadine Dorries and Melanie Phillips, it's also gathering pace here in the UK. Certain politicians on both sides of the ocean have been attempting to categorise different types of rape into levels of seriousness, suggesting if you weren't kicked in the head several times as well, it's not proper rape. I'm pretty sure nobody wants to hear my opinions on any of this, but, well, it's my blog, so fuck it.
I wonder if it's possible for those pushing to curtail or even end abortion rights to really hate women as much as they appear to, or whether instead they haven't read enough to understand about foetus development and have been taken in by what the religious right preach about it. Are those wanting to force women to explain their miscarriages in court really taking into account how the person who just lost their unborn child must be feeling? Do those attempting to protect the imagined rights of the unborn not understand the difference between a developing foetus and a developed baby? The famous empty-craniumed pop fuck Justin Bieber illustrated how the point is missed when he was asked his opinion on abortion during a TV interview. "Isn't it like killing babies?" he asked, vacantly. No Justin, it's not. It's stopping cells dividing. It's terminating an unthinking lump of carbon and water. Once it gets past a certain point, say, 24 weeks, then yes, it's very much like killing babies. But then, that's why it becomes illegal at that point. Stick to singing and looking ten Justin. It's what you do best.
The argument is of course, about the potential life being ended. So, OK, say we consider the rights of the potential human. How low do we go? Do any and all abortions become illegal? Should it be illegal to wank into a sock? After all, the sperm cells are all potential humans. Does it become illegal to have a period, to lose the potential life that was the egg? It doesn't really work setting out to protect the rights and possible future lives of potential humans in a reasonable manner because any limit you choose to impose discriminates against less developed potential humans. Set a limit of 12 weeks. Why do you hate the 10 week-old future humans so much, murderer? The 24 week limit is simply more sensible, because that is what scientific research and experience tells us is the most likely period of development where the foetus becomes viable - more than simply potential. Obviously, it's not always easy to be objective when talking about life and potential life, so the arguments for lowering the limit are understandable. But when it comes to a point where people are in favour of forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term in cases of rape and incest it becomes indefensible. Welcome to the world of the Republicans. Not just on the fringe of the tea party either - I'm talking McCain and Palin here, as well as others. What is wrong with these people? Oh right, I forgot. They've been indoctrinated into a religious cult which tells them they should give birth to their brother's or rapist's offspring on account of it being their god's will. Fuck sake.
Then there's rape. Rape, according to certain politicians with a right wing bent, isn't real rape unless there's a beating into the bargain. Violent rape is worse than non-violent rape, they say. Putting aside for a moment that I doubt there is such a thing as non-violent rape, then yes, it is. Duh. Obviously, being raped and beaten is worse than being raped. Just like being mugged and beaten is worse than being mugged. What is doesn't do, and what I think some people suggest it does do, is lessen the severity of rape that doesn't come with a bonus kicking. The example these mothercunters often use is being attacked and raped by a stranger must be worse than your lover not being able to control himself during sex when asked to stop. Fuck right off. Having been in that very situation of being asked to stop (due to a sudden and nasty cramp, if you must know), I can categorically confirm that there is no 'losing control'. Disregarding a request to stop is a fully conscience decision and is rape. Rape is rape is rape. There is no distinction. Don't ever fucking stand for it.
The same people try other things to justify rape. Dressed like that, she had it coming. She went into his house with him when she was drunk, what did she think was going to happen? They must know what they're letting themselves in for, acting like that. Not so. Before we were married, my wife (then girlfriend) was out and a guy within her circle of friends asked if he could go back to hers for a coffee. She agreed. She was still living with her parents at the time and made him coffee in their kitchen. Not expecting actual coffee, he left before he was half way through the cup. It's one of the reasons why I adore her so much. Someone dressing or acting a certain way is not the same as them giving you automatic permission to fuck them. Let me put it another way. I could walk down a street, naked, stiffy on display for all to see. At least, I could for a little while before getting battered, arrested, or both. You are still not allowed to assume I want you to have sex with me. If I stop next to you, put my hands on my hips and smile, but I say directly to you that I don't want to have sex, then you cannot have sex with me. No really does mean no, in all circumstances, behaviour and outfits notwithstanding.
There's the falsely accused thing as well. The miserable conviction rate causes many rapes to go unreported, or even for a victim to drop the charges. The unbalanced focus on the punishment for doing this is ridiculous. The damage to a life, to a reputation, is irreversible, they say. You get stigmatised for the rest of your days. Well yes, I imagine being accused of rape, falsely or otherwise, would suck a great deal. BUT NOT AS MUCH AS BEING RAPED AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT DOES. Sheesh. Perspective, please?
Anyway, that's enough of me spouting off about stuff that I know very little about. I'll make sure the next post is about nice things. Rainbows, maybe.
I wonder if it's possible for those pushing to curtail or even end abortion rights to really hate women as much as they appear to, or whether instead they haven't read enough to understand about foetus development and have been taken in by what the religious right preach about it. Are those wanting to force women to explain their miscarriages in court really taking into account how the person who just lost their unborn child must be feeling? Do those attempting to protect the imagined rights of the unborn not understand the difference between a developing foetus and a developed baby? The famous empty-craniumed pop fuck Justin Bieber illustrated how the point is missed when he was asked his opinion on abortion during a TV interview. "Isn't it like killing babies?" he asked, vacantly. No Justin, it's not. It's stopping cells dividing. It's terminating an unthinking lump of carbon and water. Once it gets past a certain point, say, 24 weeks, then yes, it's very much like killing babies. But then, that's why it becomes illegal at that point. Stick to singing and looking ten Justin. It's what you do best.
The argument is of course, about the potential life being ended. So, OK, say we consider the rights of the potential human. How low do we go? Do any and all abortions become illegal? Should it be illegal to wank into a sock? After all, the sperm cells are all potential humans. Does it become illegal to have a period, to lose the potential life that was the egg? It doesn't really work setting out to protect the rights and possible future lives of potential humans in a reasonable manner because any limit you choose to impose discriminates against less developed potential humans. Set a limit of 12 weeks. Why do you hate the 10 week-old future humans so much, murderer? The 24 week limit is simply more sensible, because that is what scientific research and experience tells us is the most likely period of development where the foetus becomes viable - more than simply potential. Obviously, it's not always easy to be objective when talking about life and potential life, so the arguments for lowering the limit are understandable. But when it comes to a point where people are in favour of forcing you to carry a pregnancy to term in cases of rape and incest it becomes indefensible. Welcome to the world of the Republicans. Not just on the fringe of the tea party either - I'm talking McCain and Palin here, as well as others. What is wrong with these people? Oh right, I forgot. They've been indoctrinated into a religious cult which tells them they should give birth to their brother's or rapist's offspring on account of it being their god's will. Fuck sake.
Then there's rape. Rape, according to certain politicians with a right wing bent, isn't real rape unless there's a beating into the bargain. Violent rape is worse than non-violent rape, they say. Putting aside for a moment that I doubt there is such a thing as non-violent rape, then yes, it is. Duh. Obviously, being raped and beaten is worse than being raped. Just like being mugged and beaten is worse than being mugged. What is doesn't do, and what I think some people suggest it does do, is lessen the severity of rape that doesn't come with a bonus kicking. The example these mothercunters often use is being attacked and raped by a stranger must be worse than your lover not being able to control himself during sex when asked to stop. Fuck right off. Having been in that very situation of being asked to stop (due to a sudden and nasty cramp, if you must know), I can categorically confirm that there is no 'losing control'. Disregarding a request to stop is a fully conscience decision and is rape. Rape is rape is rape. There is no distinction. Don't ever fucking stand for it.
The same people try other things to justify rape. Dressed like that, she had it coming. She went into his house with him when she was drunk, what did she think was going to happen? They must know what they're letting themselves in for, acting like that. Not so. Before we were married, my wife (then girlfriend) was out and a guy within her circle of friends asked if he could go back to hers for a coffee. She agreed. She was still living with her parents at the time and made him coffee in their kitchen. Not expecting actual coffee, he left before he was half way through the cup. It's one of the reasons why I adore her so much. Someone dressing or acting a certain way is not the same as them giving you automatic permission to fuck them. Let me put it another way. I could walk down a street, naked, stiffy on display for all to see. At least, I could for a little while before getting battered, arrested, or both. You are still not allowed to assume I want you to have sex with me. If I stop next to you, put my hands on my hips and smile, but I say directly to you that I don't want to have sex, then you cannot have sex with me. No really does mean no, in all circumstances, behaviour and outfits notwithstanding.
There's the falsely accused thing as well. The miserable conviction rate causes many rapes to go unreported, or even for a victim to drop the charges. The unbalanced focus on the punishment for doing this is ridiculous. The damage to a life, to a reputation, is irreversible, they say. You get stigmatised for the rest of your days. Well yes, I imagine being accused of rape, falsely or otherwise, would suck a great deal. BUT NOT AS MUCH AS BEING RAPED AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT DOES. Sheesh. Perspective, please?
Anyway, that's enough of me spouting off about stuff that I know very little about. I'll make sure the next post is about nice things. Rainbows, maybe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)