The BBFC: Stuck up suits trying to restrict our freedom to watch what we want or taking a stand against the morally wrong?

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.