Case Study: Human Centipede 2

Why interesting: Could only be released after cuts of two minutes and 37 seconds of cuts during eight sequences of the film



Classification:

• rare step of refusing to give it a rating, warning that it could fall foul of obscenity laws
• tried to justify the film as "art"
• film's distributor agreed to 32 cuts to gain an 18 certificate for DVD release
• Even so, one member of the board felt he was unable to back the decision. Gerard Lemos, one of the BBFC's vice presidents, did not feel it was classifiable and abstained from putting his name to the decision
• The film was also banned in Australia for a short period of time. It is banned in New Zealand.

Plot:

An obsessed horror movie fan grafts a number of people together for kicks

the BBFC said: "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."

It added that the film breached classification guidelines and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers"

cuts related to "sexual violence, graphic gore and the possibility of breach of the law relating to obscenity"

Response:

Director Six responded to the BBFC's decision in a statement released the next day to Empire magazine. Six criticised the BBFC for including film spoilers in their report, and stated that the film was "...fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief (sic). It is art..." and that viewers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they decided to view the film. Six also referred to the BBFC's refusal to classify the film as "exceptional".

The notoriety of the UK ban has been used to help market the film in other countries