Film Censorship: The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011)


 

 

 

 

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

Directed by Tom Six / 2011 / Netherlands-UK-USA / IMDb

In May 2011, an 87m uncut DVD of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) was passed with an R18+ (High impact themes, violence and sexual violence) rating. Bounty Films were the applicant.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FIRST SEQUENCE) had been passed with an R18+ (High impact horror themes) rating in August 2010.

 

 

June 2011: Banned in the UK

Bounty Films were also the distributor of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) in the UK. In June 2011, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) banned the 86:50 DVD. They gave the reason as:

...this work presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation and mutilation and the viewer is invited to experience the event from the perspective of the central character. The central focus of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) is the sexual arousal of this character at the idea and later the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, rape and murder of his naked victims.

There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised and degraded for the amusement and sexual arousal of the main character and for the pleasure of the viewer. There is a strong and sustained focus throughout the work on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between non-consensual pain and sexual pleasure

 

 

July 2011: Classification Board comment on the uncut version

R18+: Restriced to 18 and over
Classification Board Annual Report 2010-2011

In The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), Martin, a psychologically damaged man develops an unhealthy obsession with the film The Human Centipede and becomes determined to create his own version, an ambitious 12 person human centipede. In the opinion of the Board, the film is high in impact and may be offensive to sections of the adult community. The film is therefore appropriately located within the R 18+ classification with consumer advice of ‘High impact themes, violence and sexual violence’.

 

 

August 2011: Let the hype begin

In August, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald published an article in which Monster Pictures confessed that they were surprised that it passed uncut.

 

Censor lets Centipede crawl in
smh.com.au, August 21, 2011

A movie banned in Britain for its graphic portrayal of sexual violence, forced defecation and mutilation will be screened in Australian cinemas after the censors gave it the tick of approval in a decision that has surprised the film's distributor.

''I didn't think it would be refused classification, but I was surprised that we weren't required to cut it,'' Ben Hellwig, the acquisitions manager for the film's distributor Monster Pictures, said.

It is not the first time that Australian censors have surprised Monster Pictures, which is also distributing The Life and Death of a Porno Gang, a Serbian film featuring graphic scenes of sexual violence that was given an R18+ rating by the Classification Board in June without any scenes being removed.

''I will admit we were surprised by this one,'' Mr Hellwig said. ''There are a couple of questionable scenes involving controversial or taboo acts that have in the past seen a few films either require cuts or be banned.

''At the time we were so concerned that it might not pass that we made an unusual deal with the films sales agent to submit the film for classification before signing the contract, thus protecting ourselves should the film be rejected."

Mr Hellwig said he believed in classification but not censorship: ''I think the Classification Board has a sound grasp of the sensibilities of the general Australian population and acts accordingly.''

 

 

August 2011: Monster Pictures hype backfires

Movies referred to Classification Review Board
The Australian Family Association
Family Update, Vol.26 No.4 2011

A further blow to community standards was the classification R18+ by the Australian Classification’s Board in May of the film “The Human Centipede 11 (Full Sequence). Refused classification by the British Board of Film Classification in June for its graphic portrayal of sexual violence, forced defecation and mutilation the film depicts a scientist who grafts together kidnap victims’ mouth to anus. This renders it illegal to sell it in Britain. The acquisitions manager for the film’s distributor, Monster Pictures, said he was surprised they weren’t required to cut any scenes.

Write to your state Attorney-General (names and addresses below) requesting he/she ask for a review of the film The Human Centipede 11 (Full Sequence) by the Australian Classification Review Board:

NSW: The Honourable Greg Smith MP
Vic: The Honourable Robert Clark
Queensland: The Honourable Paul Lucas
WA: The Honourable Christian Porter
Tasmania: The Honourable Brian Wightman
SA: The Honourable John Rau
ACT: The Honourable Simon Corbell
NT: The Honourable Delia Phoebe Lawrie

 

 

September 2011: Teaser trailer

On September 5, 2011, Monster Pictures released a teaser trailer for their forthcoming release of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE).

The trailer played up the controversy, and the fact that Australia was getting it uncut, while the UK or USA was not. The following quotes were shown.

"not suitable for classification certificate"
"obscene"
"tasteless and disgusting"
"harm is likely to be cause to potential viewers"
"otherwise illegal"
"in breach of criminal law"
"sadistic violence"
"depraved sexual fantasy"
"degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture"
"encouraging anti-social attitudes"
"pain perversity and sexual pleasure'
"objects to be brutalised'
"the work is unacceptable"
"a risk of harm"
BANNED IN BRITAIN
CUT IN THE USA
UNLEASHED IN AUSTRALIA
IN CINEMAS SPRING 2011
HAS HORROR GONE TOO FAR

Many of these come from the BBFC press release and database entry that accompanied the June 2011 ban.

 

Monster Pictures also added web banner to their site that played on the controversial nature of the film.

 

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] Web Banner

 

 

September 2011: Rumours of a rating challenge

The Australian Sex Party was the first to break the news of a Review Board hearing. They named the NSW Attorney General, Greg Smith, as the person behind the application.

30 September 2011
Australian Sex Party
aussexparty 
get your copy of human centipede 2 now NSW AG has called on Review Board to reconsider R rating... or just download #auspol

 

 

On September 19, the Classification Review Board met to consider the R18+ rating that had been awarded to a heavily censored version of A SERBIAN FILM. The result was that the already released DVD was banned. The feminist group Collective Shout were granted standing as an interested party. Following the ban, they posted the news on their website.

The following comment was made on October 3, 2011.

Now a campaign is needed for a review of two other films classified earlier this yesr [sic]– “The Human Centipede 11 (Full Sequence) and “The Life and Death of a Porno Gang.”
Congratulations on your success.
Terri M. Kelleher

Kelleher is media spokesperson for the fundamentalist Christian group, the Australian Family Association. Between 2003 and 2005, they were behind challenges to the ratings of IRREVERSIBLE (2002), 9 SONGS (2004), and MYSTERIOUS SKIN (2004). All films were confirmed as R18+ by the Classification Review Board. In 2005, the Director of the Classification Board refused to give them a fee waiver to challenge Nicole Kidman's MA15+ rated BIRTH (2004).

The fact the Kelleher mentions both THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE), and THE LIFE AND DEATH OF A PORNO GANG (2009), make it seem likely that she had never heard of either film until reading the above mention Sydney Morning Herald article.

 

 

Movies referred to Classification Review Board
The Australian Family Association
Family Update, Vol.26 No.5 2011

Good news on the Classifications front!

NSW Attorney-General Greg Smith has requested a review of the R18+ classification of the film The Human Centipede 11 (Full Sequence). Its classification will now be reconsidered by the Classification Review Board.

This film contains the following objectionable scenes: highly graphic depiction of sexual acts; extreme violence crossing the threshold into torture; graphic and brutal rape; the killing of a baby and other sexually debasing acts.

These are the grounds on which we will put in a submission for the film and call for a Refused Classification (RC).

Write to NSW Attorney-General to thank him for asking for a review of The Human Centipede 11 (Full Sequence).

 

 

On October 12, Monster Pictures tweeted that the review was underway. However, nothing had been yet been announced by the Review Board.

12 October 2011
Monster Pictures
MonsterPics
You may be aware that a review of the classification decision for HumanCentipede2 in Aust. is underway. What does this mean? We don’t know!

 

 

October 2011: THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: Review date set

The Classification Review Board finally announced a meeting date three weeks after the Australian Sex Party had broke the news.

 

Classification review announced for the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence)
Australian Government
Classification Review Board
Friday 21 October 2011
Media Release

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification of the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence).

The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence) was classified R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘High impact themes, violence and sexual violence’ on 9 May 2011.

The Classification review Board will meet on 4 November 2011 to consider the application. The decision and reasons will later be published on www.classification.gov.au

If an individual or organisation wishes to apply for standing as an interested party to this review, please write to the Convenor of the Review Board.

The closing date to lodge your application as an interested party and any submission is 5.00pm on 31st October 2011. Please note that the Review Board can only consider submissions about the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence), itself and not any other matters relating to classification policy or issues generally.

Submissions should be emailed to crb@classification.gov.au or sent to:

The Convenor, Classification Review Board, Locked Bag 3, HAYMARKET NSW 1240

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. It makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

 

 

October 2011: Review date changed

Following a request from Bounty Films, the November 4 review date was changed to November 28.

 

Classification review announced for the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence)
Australian Government
Classification Review Board
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Media Release

The Classification Review Board has received an application to review the classification of the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence).

The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence) was classified R 18+ with the consumer advice ‘High impact themes, violence and sexual violence’ on 9 May 2011.

The Classification review Board, at the request of the original applicant, has rescheduled the review from 4 November 2011 to Monday 28 November 2011 to consider the application. The decision and reasons will later be published on www.classification.gov.au

If an individual or organisation wishes to apply for standing as an interested party to this review, please write to the Convenor of the Review Board.

The closing date to lodge your application as an interested party and any submission is 5.00pm on 22nd November 2011. Please note that the Review Board can only consider submissions about the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence), itself and not any other matters relating to classification policy or issues generally.

Submissions should be emailed to crb@classification.gov.au or sent to:

The Convenor, Classification Review Board, Locked Bag 3, HAYMARKET NSW 1240

The Classification Review Board is an independent merits review body. It makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. The Classification Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

 

 

October 2011: How to apply for 'Standing as an Interested Party' and make a submission to the Classification Review Board

When the Classification Review Board announces that they will meet, a request is made for submissions. Here is what they said about THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE).

 

Classification review announced for the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence)
Australian Government
Classification Review Board
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Media Release

If an individual or organisation wishes to apply for standing as an interested party to this review, please write to the Convenor of the Review Board.

The closing date to lodge your application as an interested party and any submission is 5.00pm on 22nd November 2011. Please note that the Review Board can only consider submissions about the film, The Human Centipede 2 (full sequence), itself and not any other matters relating to classification policy or issues generally.

Submissions should be emailed to crb@classification.gov.au or sent to:

The Convenor, Classification Review Board, Locked Bag 3, HAYMARKET NSW 1240

 

 

Thanks to AussieRoadshow for providing us with his experience of making a submission. We hope that this will inspire others to do the same for future Classification Review Board meetings.

 

 

AussieRoadshow to the Classification Review Board

Application for Standing as an Interested Party
26 October 2011

The Convenor
Classification Review Board
Locked Bag 3
HAYMARKET NSW 1240

Re: Classification Review for Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

To the Convenor,

I wish to apply for standing as an individual interested party, for the November 4 Classification Review of the above noted film. I base this application on concerns about the freedom of choice I have a an adult in choosing to see this particular film, potentially being denied to me, should the Review Board determine the film is Refused Classification. I believe my views are relevant to the review, because it focusses on the film itself. I would like to respectfully request that the Review Board members consider my opinions about this potentiality. I am strongly opposed to such an outcome on this film, which was duly, and in my opinion appropriately, classified R18+ by the Classification Board.

I am a private adult citizen, aged 38, with a keen interest in movies, particularly with respect to the horror film genre. I have been renting and purchasing R rated horror films for 20-years. I regularly attend film festivals, and read online blogs about this genre of film-making. I also run a YouTube channel that often focusses on online video discussion about horror and exploitation films in particular. This channel is called 'AussieRoadshow'. I have observed online comment about this film, and participated in online commenting myself, through my YouTube channel, and also on the Internet Movie Database. I understand that this film has courted controversy in recent months, which I speculate has lead to this review taking place.

This film has not yet been released in Australia, but I have waited in anticipation to see this movie for some months, especially since it was granted an R18+ classification for the Board in May 2011. As such, I have not had the opportunity to see the film. However, I have keenly followed the online discussion, as noted above, and am now aware of the content and overall storyline.

I wish to make reference to the first film in this series, as I believe it is relevant to the discussion. The original Human Centipede film was a Dutch film, about a disturbed German former surgeon, whose specialty was in separating conjoined twins. He decides to create a centipede of three conjoined humans. He abducts young travelling tourists and subjects them successfully to his bizarre fantasy. I found the film to be completely ludicrous and removed from reality, as many films of this nature often are. The film contained violence and themes of high impact, and was presented in full colour. It was granted an R18+ in 2010 in Australia. It was passed with appropriate classification advice. The film became a late night cult film at mainly arthouse and independent cinemas across Australia.

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), is about a disturbed loner named Martin, who lives a dreary existence as a security guard in public housing with his mother. He escapes this existence when he becomes obsessed with the first film. He therefore sets out to create his own bizarre fantasy with more people than the original film. I have viewed the trailer of this film on YouTube, and I understand it is almost entirely in black and white. The trailer presents the film as highly unrealistic, in line with the general tone of the first film in this series. I note that a third film is due for release in 2012.

Part 2 is currently screening on the limited 'midnight movie circuit' to adult audiences in major cities in the United States, including Los Angeles and New York. It is therefore a film with a particular target audience in mind - those prepared to attend a late night screening of a horror genre film at their choice and discretion. I note that the film has been selected for a midnight screening at the Brisbane International Film Festival on November 5. Thus, the film's intended audience appears to have been clearly defined.

I also respectfully note that adults in the USA have been given the opportunity to view this film if they so choose, and I am certain that other countries will approve the film for adult audiences, as had initially occurred here in Australia. Online reactions that I have read from those who have seen the film have been mixed, but mostly negative. People do not appear to have 'warmed' to the film at all, and many have even described it as 'boring', because the contentious material apparently only makes up a limited portion of the running time. People were anticipating a more 'extreme' film than that which has been 'hyped' by the media and film distributors. Much of the film is said to consist of 'build up', rather than actual on-screen violence. These viewer and audience reviews can be freely read online at the popular Internet Movie Database website, where the film has, at the time of writing, garnered a low user rating of 4.5 out of 10.

The first Human Centipede film has a user rating of 4.8 out of 10. I believe the original R18+ decision of the Board in May 2011 is the correct one. There are adults in this country who enjoy all aspects of the horror film genre, and desire the freedom and choice to watch this particular film as they see fit. The Board clearly do not cast aspersions with respect to the appeal such a film might have to a particular target audience, and I do not expect such to occur at this review either.

I have no doubt the film contains content and themes of a high level. However, its black and white presentation and apparent limited level of actual violence had rendered its impact as no more than high. This appears to have been the considered opinion of the Classification Board. It carries more than appropriate classification advice for adult audiences in this country, and would no doubt inform the viewing public as to what the film contains. Those likely to be offended by such material might be unlikely to view such a film, given the Board's initial ratings advice.

I understand and respect the role the Review Board have in terms of taking a fresh view of a film's classification. But I also wish for this film to be available to adults, and that freedom to choose to see it to be considered among that review process. I do not see any valid reason as to why the original R18+ decision was one made in err, given all that I understand about the film - its intended audience, its overall tone and feel that is mitigated in impact by black and white presentation, and its apparent limited actual running time devoted to any sort of on-screen violence.

A primary principle of classification in this country is that adults have the right to see and read what they wish. This principle extends to this film. As far as I am concerned this choice is not over-ridden by the whims of particular interest groups, political or otherwise, who seek to deny my choices on what I speculate is based on morality or other issues, by seeking reviews of films that attract media controversy. This is especially the case, given the film was appropriately classified 6-months ago.

I do not believe such individuals or groups would choose to see this film in any case, and I therefore do not accept any argument of 'perceived' or 'anticipatory' offence over this film being available to myself or other adults, simply because I might choose to watch this horror film. I cannot express firmly enough my right and freedom to make my choice, and do not expect that choice to be denied to me.

 

 

Kim Rawson, Project Officer, Classification Branch, Attorney General's Department to AussieRoadshow

22 November 2011

Good afternoon, Can you please confirm if you are requesting to make an appearance at the review as an interested party, or if you are making the below written Submission only?

Regards Kim

 

 

AussieRoadshow to Kim Rawson, Project Officer, Classification Branch, Attorney General's Department

22 November 2011

Thank you Kim.

I wish to request a personal appearance at the review as an interested party. Since submitting my written response, I have had the opportunity to see the R18+ classified version of the film at a late night preview screening.

My written submission still contains valid points for consideration. However, I believe I have further points that are now relevant to the review.

The grounds for this are as follows:

* I believe R18+ is the suitable classification for this film.

* I request the Review Board to consider my personal response to the film as a general member of the public, especially from the perspective of the film's intended 'target audience'.

* Finally, I wish to provide the film specific context in the horror / exploitation genre.

If a personal appearance is accepted, please provide me relevant details.

 

 

Kim Rawson, Project Officer, Classification Branch, Attorney General's Department to AussieRoadshow

23 November 2011

Please be advised that members of the public do not appear before the Classification Review Board at hearings but your written submission has been forwarded to the Review Board and will be considered along with all other submissions from the public.

Thank you for your time in putting in a submission.

Regards

Kim

 

 

AussieRoadshow to Kim Rawson, Project Officer, Classification Branch, Attorney General's Department

23 November 2011

Thank you for this information. I was unaware that members of the public were not permitted to attend actual meetings.

On this basis, I would instead like to submit a written addendum, to be included with my original submission. Having seen the film, I believe I am more informed than most as to the content and tone of the movie. I therefore wish to expand on these points of contention that are of relevance to the review, and therefore request that these are also forwarded to the Review Board.

These points are as follows:

R18+ is the appropriate classification for this film within the context of the horror genre, and carries appropriate classification advice

Human Centipede 2 does not contain scenes that are unprecedented in the horror and exploitation genre of film-making that have already been classified R18+ in Australia within the context of interpretation of the current guidelines by the Classification Board. The only point of difference with this movie is that it has attracted, what I believe is, unwarranted media attention.

The media 'hype' surrounding this particular movie is a separate issue, and does not impact upon the classifiable elements within the film. Salo (1975) is a noteworthy example of this fact.

Four notable examples of other films I have seen, in the horror and exploitation genre with high level and high impact content, but have not attracted media attention include the following titles:

* Cannibal Holocaust (1980), classified R18+ in October 2005 with the advice "animal cruelty, High level sexual violence, High level violence" This film contained scenes of sexual violence including scenes of a woman being raped, tortured and murdered in one long shot, within a serious, non-humorous context. Also contains a scene of a man having his penis cut off.

* I Spit On Your Grave (2010), classified R18+ in February 2011, with the advice "graphic violence and high impact sexual violence". This film of high intensity contained numerous scenes of gang rape, including anal rape, within a non-humorous context.

* Inside (2007), classified R1+ in March 2001, with the advice "high impact violence, blood and gore". Contains a graphic scene of a heavily pregnant woman having her foetus removed while conscious, with a sharp pair of scissors, again presented within context. This film is part of a horror genre known as the French New Wave.

* 3D Sex and Zen: Extreme Ecstasy (2011), classified R18+ in April 2011, with the advice "high impact sex scenes and sexualised violence". Contains several rape scenes, including one of a woman being raped to death within a highly unrealistic context. These particular films contain very clear classification advice, which is more than appropriate to inform adults as to what the film contains. So does the Human Centipede 2. Adults should be provided the opportunity to make that choice for themselves without interference or hinderance.

Human Centipede 2 has, along with the above noted films, a clearly defined target audience

In Melbourne, for example, the film is currently included as part of the 'cult craving' selection of films, and screens at 11:35pm on Friday and Saturday evenings. The first film in this series also screened as part of the same selection. It recently screened on the 'midnight movie' circuit in major cities in the United States.

I viewed the film on Friday, 18 November. I did not observe a single person at the screening walk out of the cinema. As an individual, I was well aware of the film's content prior to seeing the film because it carries appropriate classification advice. I was not offended by the content. I believe the intended audience for this film can tolerate the high impact content it contains.

Human Centipede 2 contains moments of black humour, is absurd in narrative context, and is mainly black and white presentation, all of which mitigate its impact to no more than high

While personally viewing the film with a real life audience, the moments of black humour mitigated the impact of the film's more contentious elements, to an overall level of high. Scenes I observed many audience members respond humorously to include, but were not limited to, the following:

* The moment when Martin's mother attempts to stab her son to death while he is sleeping, only to realise he is not lying in his bed at the time.

* A scene where Martin places his dead mother at a kitchen table, and eats food as if nothing is abnormal to him.

* A scene of a prostitute fellating a man in the back seat of a car, which turns out to be Martin's physician / therapist.

* Numerous shots of brown faecal matter splashing the camera in a ridiculous and unrealistic manner.

* Martin jumping to his feet in the air in excitement when he is watching a scene from the original film.

* Martin making flatulence sounds with his mouth, to the 'human centipede'.

The director, Tom Six, has clearly used the notion of a "monkey see, monkey do" concept, and taken it to an absurd level by overstating the level of violence to unrealistic levels. He chose a lead actor with distinct and peculiar looks. It is absurd to think that a character, presented as one with a clearly limited intellect, no spoken dialogue, and limited physical mobility, could at all be capable of executing the scenarios the film presents. The chosen victims, often conscious but restrained with gaffer tape in some instances, could have easily escaped the abandoned warehouse, but did not because the film sought to portray an unrealistic scenario.

The target audience understands these ideas to be unrealistic. This is the director's intention. However, he also chose to present the film in black and white to mitigate impact, despite the fact that it was originally filmed in colour. This was confirmed in an interview published in The Age newspaper on 18 November 2011. Black and white photography was used effectively by Quentin Tarantino in Kill Bill Vol: 1. (2003) during the "Crazy 88" slaughter scene, and it was well known that it was done so at the time for 'classification reasons'. The full colour sequence was released in Japan and Hong Kong, however.

The images of a penis, limbs, torsos, and of a newborn baby look clearly fake and unrealistic, all of which add to the absurd and overstated nature.

The sexual violence in the film is high impact, but is very limited in terms of overall running time and is again presented in an absurd and unrealistic context in the film overall.

For these reasons, I believe the R18+ rating is appropriate for this film, and therefore request these views to be taken into consideration at the review.

 

 

Kim Rawson, Project Officer, Classification Branch, Attorney General's Department to AussieRoadshow

November 29 2011

Good morning,

The Classification Review Board met on Monday 28 November 2011 to review the film, The Human Centipede II (Full sequence). The Review Board came to the unanimous decision of RC (Refused Classification).

The media release is attached and will be available on the classification website at www.classification.gov.au. The reasons for the decision will also be posted on the website when they are finalised.

This means that the film cannot be sold, hired or advertised in Australia.

I hope this information assists you.

Regards

 

 

November 2011: Return of the Christian fun-police

During a conversation with the ACL, Ros Phillips from Family Voice Australia (aka the Festival of Light) claimed that the Queensland Attorney General had ignored their request for a review.

Family Voice Australia were the group behind the failed court challenge to SALO, OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM (1975).

 

Ros Phillips on the Political Spot
Film classification in Australia
Australian Christian Lobby
November 1, 2011

Katherine Spackman: The movie is a sequel to the first movie, Human centipede I. It's by Dutch film maker Tom Six. From the little I've read about the film, it's quite sickening, and perhaps too grotesque to talk about on radio, but what was the rating given by the government in May this year?

Ros Phillips: Well the rating given by our classification board which is appointed largely by the current Gillard government, was R18+, which means that anybody over 18 can see the film or buy a DVD. Our concern is not just about the film showing in cinemas, because I'm not sure too many cinemas would want to show this, as you say, grotesque film. It is absolutely sickening. It's the ability of people to buy DVD's and once the DVD is in the home, of course, children can access it. People who sadly, are eroticised by films like these will have their grotesque fantasies affirmed. And this is why the British board of film classification banned it. They said that this has the potential to do harm. It would encourage people who enjoy this kind of film, to feel that this is a good thing to do.

Katherine Spackman: So did they ban the film altogether? My understanding of some reports is that the British government deleted some scenes out of it.

Ros Phillips: Well, not initially. In June, the British board of film classification banned the film outright. And then the distributors of the film, I think they are called “Bounty films” or something like that, they came back and tried again, and this time the board said “well, we will allow you to show it if you cut 32 different scenes out of the film” which is an extraordinary number of cuts. So it is still a bad film in Britain but they've cut out the worst bits. If I told you the worst bits, you wouldn't believe that the Australian Classification board could ever have passed it. So if people really want to know how bad this film is, they simply needs to Google British Board of Film Classification and the name of the film, “Human Centipede II, Full sequence” and realise, you know you just wonder what other films are being passed by our classification board that should be banned completely. It's going down a very downward spiral at present.

Katherine Spackman: You'll be making a submission. What are you calling for in the submission?

Ros Phillips: Well, we are calling for a ban. You see, our government doesn't have the power, by law, to make any cuts to a film that's submitted, so the board either passes the film complete, or bans the film complete, so they don't have the power that the British board does, to make these 32 cuts, so it's very clear to me that the review board will have to ban the film completely. But whether they will do that is another question.

Katherine Spackman: And I understand that this Brisbane International Film festival this weekend is funded by taxpayers. Has the Queensland Government said anything about this film?

Ros Phillips: Well, we asked them some months ago would they request a review of the film, because the Attorney General in any state can by law ask the Commonwealth to order a review of the Classification Review Board. We didn't even get a reply to our letter, and the arts minister in Queensland when she was shown the Sunday mail article saying how sickening the film is she just said “Oh no, this decision has been made, we've got nothing to do with it” whereas they did have the power to ask for a review, and just refused. It was the New South Wales Attorney General who asked for a review.

Katherine Spackman: That was Ros Phillips, from Family Voice Australia, talking about the film “Human Centipede II “ which will play at the Brisbane International film festival this weekend.

 

 

November 2011: Australian Premiere at BIFF

The change of review date from November 4 to November 28 allowed THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 to premiere at the Brisbane International Film Festival. The build up to the screening was not without controversy.

 

Human Centipede sequel crawls into Brisbane
brisbanetimes.com.au, October 11, 2011

First it was gay zombie porn, now a movie deemed so offensive it was at first banned in the United Kingdom is the latest radical program choice made by Brisbane International Film Festival director Richard Moore.

It's not the first time Moore, among the few in the country to have seen the film, has sparked controversy; while head of the Melbourne International Film Festival, his selection of Bruce laBruce's L.A. Zombie was followed by a ban, and an illegal screening.

He said the movie was not being treated as one of the showpiece films of the event.

"Am I a cheap seeker of publicity? No," he said.

"I see it as one horror movie, inside a horror genre program and one of 135 films in the festival screened once, late night, clearly marked, where no people under the age of eighteen will be allowed in."

"I watched it together with my 18-year-old son and it is what it is - it's a black and white horror movie," he said.

"Some people might say if you watch it and you enjoy it you should seriously seek medical attention but the other side of this is that I am running a film festival and there is an enormous audience for it and I'm not going to deny that demand."

 

 

Depraved flick The Human Centipede 2 gets OK for Brisbane International Film Festival
couriermail.com.au, October 30, 2011

Queensland was once infamous for its movie censorship, with the state banning an average of five films a year until former premier Wayne Goss disbanded the review board in 1990.

Arts Minister Rachel Nolan is refusing to intervene, saying it's up to federal classifiers to approve films.

"This is the new Queensland and the Government and I, as Arts Minister, are not going to be some kind of moral censor," Ms Nolan said.

The Classification Review Board is examining the film's R18+ rating after a request from the NSW Attorney-General. But the review will not be conducted until November 28, allowing it to premiere at a midnight screening at Brisbane's Tribal Theatre next Saturday.

Eight complaints have been made to classifiers.

Christian lobby group Family Voice Australia is preparing a submission to the review board calling for the film to be banned in Australia.

"Films like this are really promoting a very demeaning image of women and children," said national research officer Roslyn Phillips, urging Brisbane organisers to ditch the movie from its program.

 

 

Bigger. Longer. More mouths to feed.
Screening on Sat 5 Nov: Guest in attendance
20th Brisbane International Film Festival

The Human Centipede 2
Tom Six | Netherlands, UK | Fantastic Fest@BIFF | 87 mins R18+
AUSTRALIAN PREMIERE

The second part of the world's most notorious horror franchise has arrived. And it's a story told in 12 parts.

Inspired by watching of The Human Centipede, a depraved actor decides to emulate the film and construct his own human centipede, only this time with twelve people instead of three. And... that's about it for the plot.

Banned in Britain, given a surprisingly breezy R18+ rating in Australia, and described by director Tom Six as making the original look like My Little Pony, The Human Centipede 2 has every intention of being the most extreme film you have ever seen. Be warned.

And, just for the record, if you have to ask what a human centipede is, this film probably isn't for you.

D Tom Six P Ilona Six Dist Monster Pictures TD Blu-ray/2011

 

 

November 2011: Australian screenings with Laurence Harvey

The change of review date also allowed a nationwide series of screenings with Laurence Harvey, the star of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2, in attendance. Monster Pictures announced the dates on twitter.

@MonsterPics
02 November 2011

There will then be Meet Martin limited screenings, with actor Laurence Harvey in attendance, nationwide from the 16th-25th

Meet Martin. The Human Centipede 2 screening in Adelaide at @MercuryCinema on Nov 16th

Meet Martin. The Human Centipede 2 screening in Melbourne at @cinemanova on Nov 17th

Meet Martin. The Human Centipede 2 screening in Sydney at Mu Meson Archives on Nov 18-19th

Meet Martin. The Human Centipede 2 screening in Brisbane at @tribaltheatre on Nov 23rd

Meet Martin. The Human Centipede 2 screening in Perth at @lunapalace on Nov 25th

 

Tribal Theatre, Brisbane
Join Tribal Theatre on November 23rd for an evening of UNCUT Centipede Madness.
We will be screening the briefly banned (in the UK) and very much uncut Human Centipede 2 with a Q&A session hosted by Brisbanes king of cult Andrew Leavold with sickening star Laurence R. Harvey.
Join us for a discussion on film censorship, new horror, and well what ever else you like!

 

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Cinema Nova Melbourne [au] Flyer

 

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] Lobby Card #1The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] Lobby Card #2The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] Lobby Card #3

 

 

 

November 2011: Banned by the Classification Review Board

The Human Centipede II (full sequence) classified RC upon review
Australian Government
Classification Review Board

28 November 2011
Media Release

A three member panel of the Classification Review Board (the Review Board) has by unanimous decision determined that the film The Human Centipede II (full sequence) is classified RC (Refused Classification).

In the Review Board’s opinion, The Human Centipede II (full sequence) could not be accommodated within the R 18+ classification as the level of depictions of violence in the film has an impact which is very high.

In addition, the film must be refused classification because it contains gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact and cruelty which has a high impact.

Films classified RC cannot be sold, hired, or advertised in Australia.

The Review Board convened on Monday 28 November 2011 in response to an application from the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor, to review the decision made by the Classification Board on 9 May 2011 to classify The Human Centipede II (full sequence) R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice, 'high impact themes, violence and sexual violence'.

In reviewing the classification, the Review Board worked within the framework of the National Classification Scheme, applying the provisions of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games. This is the same framework used by the Classification Board.

The Review Board is an independent merits review body. Meeting in camera, it makes a fresh classification decision upon receipt of an application for review. This Review Board decision takes the place of the original decision made by the Classification Board.

The Review Board’s reasons for this decision will appear on the Classification website when finalised.

 

 

November 2011: HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: Full Review Board report

Australian Government
Classification Review Board

28 November 2011
23-33 MARY STREET
SURRY HILLS, NSW

MEMBERS:
Ms Victoria Rubensohn AM (Convenor)
Ms Ann Stark
Dr Melissa de Zwart

APPLICANT
The Minister for Justice, The Hon. Brendan O’Connor MP

INTERESTED PARTIES
Monster Pictures Australia (a genre label of Bounty Entertainment, the original applicant for classification).

BUSINESS
To review the Classification Board’s decision to classify the film The Human Centipede II (full sequence) R 18+ (Restricted) with the consumer advice ‘High impact themes, violence and sexual violence’.

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Decision

The Classification Review Board (the Review Board) by unanimous decision determined that the film, The Human Centipede II (full sequence), should be Refused Classification.

 

2. Legislative provisions

The Classification (Publications, Film and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) (the Classification Act) governs the classification of films and the review of classification decisions. Section 9 provides that films are to be classified in accordance with the National Classification Code (the Code) and the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games (the Guidelines).

Section 11 of the Classification Act requires that the matters to be taken into account in making a decision on the classification of a film include:

(a) the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults; and

(b) the literary, artistic or educational merit (if any) of the film; and

(c) the general character of the film, including whether it is of a medical, legal or scientific character; and

(d) the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or likely to be published.

Three essential principles underlie the use of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games 2005 (the Guidelines), determined under s 12 of the Act:

• the importance of context;

• the assessment of impact; and

• the six classifiable elements – themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity.

The Code also sets out various principles to which classification decisions should give effect, as far as possible.

 

3. Procedure

A three member panel of the Review Board met on 28 November 2011 in response to the receipt of an application from The Minister for Justice dated 5 October 2011 and received on 7 October 2011, to review the R18+ classification of the film, which had been determined by the Classification Board. The Board had originally arranged to review the film on 4 November 2011, but the review was delayed following a request from Monster Films Australia. The three members had previously determined that the application was a valid application.

The Review Board was assured that the film, the subject of the review application, was the same film that had been classified by the Classification Board.

Three members of the Review Board viewed the film on 28 November 2011. The Review Board heard oral submissions from four representatives on behalf of Monster Pictures Australia. These oral submissions were provided in addition to written submissions.

The Review Board then considered the matter.

 

4. Evidence and other material taken into account

In reaching its decision the Review Board had regard to the following:

(i) The application for review;

(ii) Monster Pictures Australia’s written and oral submissions;

(iii) 24 written submissions received by the Review Board;

(iv) the film, The Human Centipede II (full sequence);

(v) the relevant provisions in the Classification Act, the Code and the Guidelines; and

(vi) the Classification Board’s report.

 

5. Synopsis

The Human Centipede II (full sequence) is a ‘body horror’ film that depicts the actions of Martin, a disturbed and challenged man who has become obsessed with and aroused by repeated viewings of the film The Human Centipede. Martin undertakes his own project to kidnap twelve people to create a ‘human centipede’, joining people together as had been depicted in The Human Centipede. Martin works as a security guard in a car park and lives with his mother, who taunts and abuses him. Martin has unspecified psychological problems, is obese and has severe asthma. It is suggested several times throughout the film that these problems are attributable to Martin having been molested by his father, who is in prison.

Martin kidnaps people from the car park and elsewhere, and takes them to a warehouse, where they are stripped, bound and gagged. He also kidnaps an actress from the original Human Centipede film, after luring her to a meeting. After violently murdering his mother, Martin constructs his human centipede, by crudely stapling and taping his victims together, mouth to anus. He does this by following the instructions from the original film. In the course of this process, he tortures his victims with mutilation, bashing and shooting. Later in the film, one of his victims, a pregnant woman Martin thought he had killed, escapes the warehouse, only to give birth to her baby in a locked car, while being menaced by Martin. She then crushes and kills with the accelerator the newly born baby in her escape attempt.

Martin injects his victims with laxative, to fulfil his dream of a centipede with a continuous, functioning alimentary canal. He then wraps barbed wire around his penis and implicitly violently rapes the last body in the centipede. Finally, he shoots or slits the throats of all of the centipede victims. The final scene shows Martin again at his desk in the car park, ambiguously leaving open the question whether the narrative of the film took place in Martin’s imagination. Alternatively, this scene could suggest that, having achieved his goal of recreating the human centipede depicted in The Human Centipede I and killing his victims, Martin returns to his previous anonymous and dull existence, unaffected by the pain and death he has inflicted upon others.

 

6. Findings on material questions of fact

The Review Board found that the film contains aspects or scenes of importance under various classifiable elements. As well as the six classifiable elements of themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity, the Review Board took account of the provisions regarding Refused Classification (RC) both in the Code and in the Guidelines in relation to crime or violence, sex and drug use. In particular, the Review Board addressed the provision in the Guidelines that sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent will be refused classification.

These findings will therefore deal with each of these matters in turn:

A. The Guidelines: Classifiable Elements R18+

B. The Guidelines: Refused Classification

C. The Code

 

A. The Guidelines: Classifiable Elements R18+

(a) Themes – The theme of the film is obsession leading to mutilation, torture, cruelty and degradation. There are virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes at the R18+ classification, however, as discussed below, the Review Board also considered these elements in the context of the Act and the Code.

 

(b) Violence – The Review Board identified a large number of violent acts throughout the film, including: bashing heads with crowbars, stabbing, mutilation, cutting, stapling and shooting of victims.

The violence was detailed, prolonged and repeated frequently. The film featured close ups of such repeated violence including: smashing numerous people over the head with a crowbar, bashing in the face with a crowbar such as to dislodge teeth, the stapling of victims’ mouths to anuses, the brutal cutting of throats, and cutting and mutilation of flesh and other body parts.

Individual scenes which featured very high impact violence include the violent murder of Martin’s mother by bashing in her skull revealing massed brain gore (37.00-38.00); the cutting of a kidnap victim’s buttocks resulting in haemorrhagic blood and gore, leading to death (58.30-59.21); a man’s teeth being smashed with a hammer over the course of a minute, with gurgling and choking noises, copious amounts of blood and the broken teeth being removed violently by hand (53.50-54.50); the detailed bloody cutting and severing of ligaments in the knee without anaesthetic, depicting the victims’ reactions and terror (56.40-58.42); forcing a large feeding tube down the throat of a woman captive and then tearing out her tongue with pliers (65.47- 67.28) and the crushing to death of a newborn baby by its mother with the accelerator pedal (77.34). These scenes were filmed in close up, were detailed and their individual, as well as the cumulative, impact was very high.

The film contains a scene of sexual and sexualised violence in which Martin wraps barbed wire around his erect penis and implicitly brutally rapes the female victim who is the last link in the human centipede. Sexual violence can be accommodated in the R18+ category if it is implied and justified by context. However, this scene cannot be accommodated under the R18+ category due to it being an offensive depiction of sexual violence (see below) requiring it to be Refused Classification. The distributor claimed that the film was highly stylised. The Review Board disagrees with this representation of the film. Scenes were shot against realistic backgrounds such as a commercial indoor car park, a disused warehouse and a council flat in London. These sets were not stylised but grimly realistic. The film is shot in a realistic style and the use of black and white film fails to minimise the impact, in fact creating a sense of gritty realism.

The violence is perpetrated in a realistic, sadistic and often prolonged way with an unrelenting sense of fear, violence and despair. Martin’s victims are aware of his intentions for them and can often see and always hear what he is doing to others in the Human Centipede, thus anticipating their own agony. The graphic images, in particular the scenes depicting Martin stapling people together, are accompanied by brutal sounds, screams and cries of pain, fear and despair, adding to the sense of violence, degradation and desperation. The music is also low and menacing and serves to emphasise the sense of fear and despair. The display of blood, gore, ligaments, flesh and bodies and body part is very realistic and frequently shown in graphic detail. This very high level impact violence cannot be accommodated under the R18+ classification.

 

(c) Language – There is extensive high level swearing in the film. However, there are virtually no restrictions on language in the R18+ category and therefore the language can be accommodated at this level.

 

(d) Sex – Sexual activity may be realistically simulated in the R18+ category. The general rule is “simulation, yes – the real thing, no”. While watching the video of the violence inflicted on the victims in The Human Centipede I, Martin becomes sexually aroused and draws his penis out of his trousers, explicitly wraps sandpaper around his erect penis, and then masturbates, implicitly climaxing. However, this scene cannot be accommodated under the R18+ category as it constitutes an offensive depiction of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent and thus must be Refused Classification (see below).

 

(e) Drug Use – There is no drug use in the film.

 

(f) Nudity – There is extensive nudity in the film but nudity can be accommodated at the R18+ category.

 

As the film exceeds the R18+ classification category it must be Refused Classification.

 

B. The Guidelines: Refused Classification Crime or violence:

The Guidelines provide for consideration of elements, the presence of which would result in the film being Refused Classification under the category of ‘crime or violence’: Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

(i) Violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed;

(ii) Cruelty or real violence which are very detailed or which have a high impact;

(iii) Sexual violence.

Based upon these relevant provisions of the Guidelines, these elements are therefore addressed by the Review Board:

• The Board considers that the prolonged and graphically detailed scene of the victims being forced to defecate in one another’s mouths, which are stapled onto the anus of the victim in front of them, is an offensive depiction of cruelty that has a high impact. This scene goes from (70.52-72.11) and depicts the victims being injected with a very fast-acting laxative. The victims subsequently convulse and are shown with excrement flowing down their buttocks and legs and from their mouths. The excrement sprays onto the camera. This is accompanied by sounds of flatulence and groaning. Martin initially is delighted with the result but then vomits (72.34). The scene is an offensive depiction due to its degrading, demeaning and sadistic nature.

• The fatal crushing of the baby (77.20-77.34) is a gratuitous and offensive depiction of violence with a very high degree of impact because, in the Review Board’s opinion, this scene does not add to the storyline (the baby’s mother immediately disappears from the film) and the bloody detail of a newborn baby being violently crushed to death makes the depiction offensive.

• The rape by Martin of the female victim, who is the final link in the centipede, is an offensive depiction of sadistic sexual violence. Martin wraps his penis in barbed wire before commencing the forced anal intercourse. The depiction is offensive because the use of barbed wire is an overtly violent act, which exacerbates the sadistic sexual violence of the rape, and further serves to dehumanise the victim, who is not treated as a woman but as the end section in a centipede.

 

Sex

The Guidelines require that films which include or contain the following must be refused classification: Gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of:

(i) sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent;

(ii) incest fantasies or other fantasies which are offensive or abhorrent.

The Review Board noted the following depictions of gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent:

• The film shows Martin becoming aroused while watching the violence done to victims in The Human Centipede I. He is then explicitly shown wrapping sandpaper around his penis and masturbating while watching the film. He implicitly ejaculates (27.45-28.29). The Review Board considers that this scene involves sexual activity accompanied by offensive fetishes or practices deliberately accompanied by pain. This constitutes the offensive depiction of a masochistic fetish which would require the film to be Refused Classification. This scene, when viewed in the context of the entire film, serves to confirm the sexual nature of Martin’s obsession with The Human Centipede I and his own human centipede ‘creation’. Thus, although the scene is relatively brief, it strongly contributes to the conclusion that for Martin, the Human Centipede is a fetish, combining elements of sex, degradation, pain and violence.

A fetish is defined in the Guidelines as: ‘an object, an action or a non-sexual part of the body which gives sexual gratification’. It is further defined in The Concise Oxford Dictionary as an ‘abnormal stimulus, or object, of sexual desire’. This combination of object, sex and violence, reflecting Martin’s fetish, makes the scene unsuitable for inclusion at the R18+ category, as the Guidelines state that any film which includes ‘gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent’, must be Refused Classification’. In the opinion of the Review Board, the scene of Martin masturbating with sandpaper to images of pain, degradation and torture satisfies these elements.

• The Review Board considers that, consistent with the definition of fetish above, Martin’s obsession with The Human Centipede 1 and his own human centipede, and the clearly depicted arousal he displays in contemplating either, may be considered a fetish. As such, this fetish forms the thematic core of the film. The film contains a number of offensive or exploitative depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices that are offensive or abhorrent. These scenes include Martin’s arousal and masturbation with sandpaper when contemplating the original Human Centipede film, his obsessive fantasising with the book of the original film, his satisfaction and pleasure at the brutal, degrading and bloody creation of the centipede itself and the violent barbed-wire rape of the last victim in the centipede, implicitly also the rape and humiliation of the whole centipede.

In the Review Board’s opinion, the cumulative sense of fear, degradation, horror and despair deliberately created by such scenes, renders these depictions offensive. The portrayal of extreme and prolonged human degradation for Martin’s sexual gratification and the pleasure of the viewer is both exploitative and offensive. Further, the depiction of Martin’s fetish through a number of sustained and cumulative scenes, noted above, is exploitative and offensive because Martin’s sexual gratification is dependent upon the degradation and the extreme physical and mental pain (and even death) he sadistically inflicts on his victims.

Martin deliberately dehumanises and debases his victims for his own pleasure, turning them from individuals into mere objectified segments in the centipede. The prolonged scenes of degrading torture make the portrayal of this concept exploitative and offensive, depicting human torture, debasement and dehumanisation for sexual gratification and the entertainment of others. Despite a submission from a film academic representing Monster Pictures, that the film as a whole, inter alia, has its roots in art cinema and that it “plays into a tradition of experimental cinema and visual art”, n the Review Board’s opinion the exploitative scenes noted above are lacking in artistic, moral or other values.

• At 73.25- 75.35, Martin explicitly removes his penis from his pants and wraps barbed wire around his penis. He then implicitly commences forced anal intercourse with the woman who is the final link in the ‘centipede’ he has created. The impact of this brutal rape of the ‘centipede’ is shown on both the individual female victim and on the other victims in the human centipede. The Review Board considers that this scene involves an offensive and exploitative depiction of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or offensive practices because the use of barbed wire is an overtly violent act, which exacerbates the sadistic sexual violence of the rape and further serves to debase and dehumanise the victim, who is not treated as a woman but as the end section in a centipede. This is not just a sexual act, but an overtly violent one. In the Review Board’s view this scene is lacking in artistic, moral or other values.

The Review Board notes that the term ‘offensive’ is defined in the Guidelines as ‘material which causes outrage or extreme disgust’. The Review Board considers that the scenes discussed above would cause extreme disgust as, in the Review Board’s opinion, they contravene “the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults”.

It was submitted orally to the Review Board, but not argued at length, that the whole film could, but not necessarily should, be interpreted as a fantasy or dream sequence. In the view of the Review Board, if that argument were to be accepted, this film would constitute an offensive or exploitative depiction of a fantasy which is offensive or abhorrent for the reasons discussed above.

 

C. The Code:

The National Classification Code states, inter alia (in Item 1 (Refused Classification), sub-paragraph (a), (b) and (c)), that films that:

a) depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adult to the extent that they should not be classified; or

b) describe or depict in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult, a person who is, or appears to be, a child under 18 (whether the person is engaged in sexual activity or not); or

c) promote, incite or instruct in matters of crime or violence;

should be refused classification.

The Code also requires that in making its decision the Review Board must take account of community concerns about, inter alia, the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner (National Classification Code (d) (ii)).

The Review Board considered the scenes identified above in the context of the application of the Code. The Code, at 3, 1 (a) states that films that ‘depict, express or otherwise deal with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that they should not be classified’ must be classified Refused Classification. The Review Board considers that the numerous scenes of cruelty, violence, degradation and torture described above, combined with the scenes of violent rape, mutilation, forced defecation and brutally crude improvised surgery would be considered offensive in terms of the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by a reasonable adult viewer.

The Review Board considers that the extended, graphic depictions of men and women being tortured in a sadistically degrading manner, including being held naked and chained, violently beaten, crudely joined by staples and tape mouth to anus, and forced to defecate in one another’s mouths, for the sexual gratification of their captor, clearly and repeatedly portrays those men and women in a degrading and demeaning manner. In the Review Board’s opinion, this film contains depictions of sex, crime, cruelty, violence or revolting and abhorrent phenomena that are likely to offend general community standards of morality and decency such that the film should be refused classification. The pervasive sense of debasement and disgust engendered by “Human Centipede 2” is not justified by the context of this being a ‘body horror’ film.

 

7. Reasons for the decision

Pursuant to the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games, this film is Refused Classification. The film depicts, in a relentless and continuous sequence of events and graphic, detailed images, the brutal kidnapping (and eventual murder) of a large number of people, who are violently and sadistically assaulted, debased, mutilated and fashioned brutally and painfully into a degrading ‘human centipede’ for the gratification of Martin’s sadistic obsession and fetish, inspired by the film The Human Centipede I.

The distributor stated that the film is part of a genre of horror films, known as ‘body horror’, and viewers would expect to be shocked and emotionally challenged by the film. He stated that the director’s “stated intention is to use violent imagery and the conventions of the horror genre to create an emotionally and physically devastating piece of contemporary cinema”. However, the Guidelines require that any film which contains gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact, cruelty which has a high impact or sexual violence, must be refused classification. This is the case, even taking into account, as the Review Board is required to do, ‘the persons or class of persons to or amongst whom it is published or is intended or is likely to be published’, under the Act. The Review Board considers that some viewers of the film, particularly those familiar with Human Centipede 1, may expect to be shocked and repulsed, but this does not preclude a finding that the film contains high level and frequent depictions of cruelty, violence with a very high impact or revolting or abhorrent phenomena that offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adult, which is a required consideration under the Code. Thus the film must be Refused Classification.

The Review Board also considered the requirement in the National Classification Code (d) (ii) that in making its decision the Review Board must take account of community concerns about, inter alia, the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. The level of humiliation and degradation, involving forced bodily functions, imposed on Martin’s victims, deprives them of all aspects of their dignity and would, in the opinion of the Review Board, be sufficient to raise community concerns about the demeaning portrayal of men and women being reduced to a brutalised animal state for the sexual gratification of another person.

In the Review Board’s opinion, The Human Centipede II (full sequence) could not be accommodated within the R18+ classification as the level of depictions of violence had a very high impact and the depictions of cruelty had a high impact. These depictions were also gratuitous, exploitative or offensive for the reasons outlined above. Having addressed the matters prescribed by the Act, Code and Guidelines, the Review Board determined that the film must be Refused Classification on the basis of gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact or which are excessively frequent, prolonged or detailed; cruelty which has a high impact; sexual violence and also on the basis of gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of sexual activity accompanied by fetishes or practices which are offensive or abhorrent.

 

8. Summary

The Review Board determined that the film, Human Centipede II (full sequence) is Refused Classification.

 

 

November 2011: The Classification Board police Brisbane

The Tribal Theatre in Brisbane posted on their Facebook page that a community liaison officer from the Classification Board had told them to stop screening THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) now that it was banned.

Tribal Theatre
facebook.com/TribalTheatreBrisbane, November 29, 2011

At 10:00am this morning a woman from the board of classification came into our office and informed us to remove THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 from our schedule as its review has had its classification pulled. We are sorry to say that we must cancel our last screenings of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2. We at Tribal Theatre believe that every film has the right to classification, and it's YOU that should make the decision on whether you want to see it or not. DAMN THE MAN, SAVE THE CENTIPEDE.

 

 

November 2011: Christians behind the ban

The conservative Christian, Melinda Tankard Reist claimed credit for the ban. Her Collective Shout group was also responsible for A SERBIAN FILM (2011) being reviewed and Refused Classification.

Twitter: 29 November 2011

MelTankardReist
Another @collectiveshout win. Classification Review Board finds Human Centipide II wrongly classified

 

 

Also speaking out were Family Voice Australia (aka the Festival of Light).

Human Centipede crushed
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Family Voice Australia

"We congratulate the Classification Review Board for its unanimous decision to classify the "torture porn" film The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) as Refused Classification," Ros Phillips, national research officer for FamilyVoice Australia, said today.

"Earlier this year we were shocked to learn that the uncut version of this horrific film had been passed by Australia’s Classification Board as R18+ - but had been banned by the British Board of Film Classifcation (BBFC)," Mrs Phillips said.

The BBFC commented: "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."

FamilyVoice provided the Classification Review Board with a substantial submission, explaining in detail why Australia’s classification guidelines require scenes in Human Centipede 2 to be Refused Classification.

"On behalf of Australian families, we thank the Board for its unanimous agreement," Ros Phillips said. “Pornography based on human torture has no place on Australian screens."

 

 

Human Centipede II banned but the fight’s still on for 'Good Christian Bitches'
November 2011
Eternity Newspaper

A month ago FamilyVoice made a submission to the board following the NSW Attorney General’s call to assess the film’s suitability for public viewing, even though it had already been released.

The verdict makes Australia the second country to ban Human Centipede II. Britain was the first, although a revised version of the film was later released.

FamilyVoice Australia representatives did not watch either of the Human Centipede films but based their submission on a document from the British Board of Film Classification.

Ros Phillips from FamilyVoice describes the film as "torture porn". "It shows a man being explicitly aroused by human torture. And it’s encouraging people in the audience to be aroused along with him in these specific scenes. It’s promoting and legitimising the most extreme form of sexual violence."

Following the film’s ban Crikey’s Luke Buckmaster opined: "A common response to the banning of The Human Centipede II was ‘I’ll just download it’. [Melinda Tankard] Reist and other pro-ban advocates may argue that fewer people will see the film in the public domain, in cinemas next to cafes, bars, schools and book shops, which is true. But no sane person would argue that fewer people will now obtain it illegally."

But Phillips dismisses this kind of sentiment. "You could say that about any law couldn’t you – that for some people it’s a challenge to break it," she said. "But that’s no reason not to have the law."

"The reality is that this horrible DVD used to be sold quite blatantly in stores around Australia and used to be in front of people when they go to buy. It will no longer be." When asked why she thought this kind of thing was released, Phillips put it down to the artworld attempting to become "even more extreme". "Human nature sadly," she said.

 

 

December 2011: Monster Pictures hit back

Monster Pictures Response to the Banning of The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence
Press Release
monsterpictures.com.au, December 1, 2011

On Tuesday morning Monster Pictures received a phone call from a spokesperson from the Classification Review Board alerting us to the fact that THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE had been refused classification in Australia. This came less than twenty-four hours after a two and a half hour Classification Review Board hearing in Sydney. The hearing was convened by Victoria Rubensohn, and was attended by Ann Stark and Melissa De Zwark representing the Classification Review Board, and Tony Romeo, Neil Foley, Jack Sargeant and Laura Crawford representing Monster Pictures Australia, the Australian distributors of the film.

Monster Pictures would like to express our disappointment at this decision.

We presented a great deal of evidence, including the submissions of two highly regarded film experts (Jack Sargeant and Laura Crawford) to support our notion that this film was produced with significant artistic credentials, and with its contentious elements justified within the context of story and genre.

Unfortunately this was rejected by the Classification Review Board, whose subjective opinion it is that the film lacks artistic merit, and must be refused classification on the grounds that it “contains gratuitous, exploitative or offensive depictions of violence with a very high degree of impact and cruelty which has a high impact”.

Monster Pictures rejects this notion outright.

Monster Pictures also rejects the notion that three middle-class women – two lawyers and a family therapist – who supposedly “broadly represent the Australian community”, have the ability or credentials to read or understand a film such as THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE.

Indeed much of our discussion around this black and white film, with its casting, sound and production design steeped in the traditions of underground, horror and avant-garde cinema, was on whether or not the film was “highly stylised” or “realistic”. In the opinion of the Convenor of the Review Board, this cinematic depiction is presented to the viewer as “realistic”, which therefore escalates the violence in the film from high impact, to very high impact, therefore making it eligible for a Refusal of Classification.

To Monster Pictures and its representatives this would suggest not only a total and ludicrous misunderstanding of cinematic conventions but also a blatant refusal to accept the evidence that was presented during the hearing. It is our belief that the review hearing was little more than an expensive waste of time, and that the Classification Review Board had already made up their mind about the film prior to our submission.

Monster Pictures would also like to draw attention to the fact that two ultra conservative Christian groups, Collective Shout and Family Voice Australia, are both claiming victory for the banning on their websites. We reject the notion that fringe groups – that are amongst many other things, anti-homosexual, anti-Islamic and anti-choice – can have this level of influence over what the adult public of this country can or cannot view in a cinema or in the privacy of their own homes.

To Monster Pictures this represents a growing and alarming trend of fundamentalism pervading the public arena.

To us this is a far broader issue than just THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE.

It is our opinion that every free-thinking adult in this country, whether they intend to view the film or not, should be alarmed by the increasing influence of the Christian right in such matters. Monster Pictures believe that the original R18+ Classification of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE received in May 2011 was absolutely correct, and was arrived upon by a board who read the content and context of the film in a fair, unbiased and informed manner.

We believe the current ratings system to be a system that works well to identify the contentious points within a film, and to alert people to the nature of the viewing material. Monster Pictures would also like to express our disapproval of the fact that the original assessment and subsequent rating provided by the Classification Board in May 2011 could not be used as evidence in our “hearing” to support our notion that the film contained no material that was unlawful or obscene in any way. We are outraged by the notion that two bodies working within the same system could apply the very same legislation to the very same material yet arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions – to us this would suggest a fundamental and very worrying bias by the Review Board, a bias that we believe to be highly influenced by political agenda.

In the end the fate of our investment comes down to the subjective opinions of three women – two lawyers and a family therapist – ignoring the opinions of film professionals and a Government appointed Classification Board, to reinterpret the material and to arrive at the conclusion that the film should be refused classification. In our opinion this is absolutely wrong.

Monster Pictures premiered the uncut version of the film at this year’s Brisbane International Film Festival. In addition we have just completed a national tour of the film, accompanied by Q&A sessions with the films lead actor Laurence R. Harvey. The film has screened to sell out audiences in almost every capital city in the country, and has been unanimously well received. To the best of our knowledge the film has received no complaints as a result of these screenings – to the contrary we have been inundated with emails of support from people around the country outraged at this decision.

To Monster Pictures this only serves to highlight how out of touch the Classification Review Board is with the current standards of the Australian cinema going public, and how wrong they are in their interpretation of the material.

Monster Pictures is fundamentally opposed to any form of censorship of legally produced adult material.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE was produced in the UK with full respect to the laws of that country. These laws are also in line with those of this country. There was no one harmed in any way in the production of this film. We reject any notion that any harm can be done to adults who view this material. We believe that the film’s director Tom Six has produced one of the most significant genre films in recent history – one that deserves to be seen in its original form by interested and consenting adults in this country.

Monster Pictures intends to resubmit a modified version of the film to the Classification Board. Once rated, we intend to continue our theatrical exhibition, which will lead to a DVD release early in the New Year. We also undertake to explore every option available to have this film released in full in this country.

Neil Foley
Monster Pictures

 

 

Monster Pictures used author Jack Sargeant to defend the film. The unedited indicative notes on which the talk was based can be found on Jack's blog.

Wriggle Like A Centipede
jacksargeant.blogspot.com, December 2, 2011

 

 

December 2011: Family Voice Australia complained without viewing the film

This is an 18-minute interview that Rhett Bartlett conducted with Ros Philips, the National Research Officer of Family Voice Australia. It was originally released on December 1, 2011.

Human Centipede 2 - Interview with Family Voice
youtube.com/user/nocensorshipau

 

 

December 2011: Damien Tudehope and the NSW Attorney General Greg Smith

The NSW Attorney General Greg Smith requested the review of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE). In the following article, David Marr examines the campaign to have the film re-examined, and looks at the influence of the AG's Chief of Staff, Damien Tudehope.

Damien Tudehope represented The Australian Family Association at the Classification Review Board hearings for the following books and films.

 

A centipede banned, by special request
smh.com.au, December 10, 2011

Inside Smith's office, heroic restraint appears to have been the order of the day. He assures the Herald that his chief of staff, Damien Tudehope, played no role in the banning of the horror film. Solicitor, would-be Liberal MP and fierce warrior in a string of past film censorship battles, Tudehope both guards Smith's door and sits on the advisory board of FamilyVoice Australia.

The film's distributor, Neil Foley of Monster Films, says: ''We played to a couple of hundred people in Brisbane over a couple of screenings; 500 or so people in Perth; something similar in Melbourne; and then in Sydney another 150 or 200.'' He puts the total audience in those weeks at less than 1500.

A story on Fairfax websites alerted the film's adversaries to its existence in late August. Monster Films was doing itself no good by reminding everyone of the scathing commentary of the British Board of Film Classification and stamping its trailer with the slogan ''Banned in Britain. Unleashed in Australia''.

Christian lobbyists following the usual game plan sought an attorney-general willing to demand the film's review. Each of the nation's eight attorneys-general can call for the reassessment of any film - or book, DVD and video game - by censorship's little court of appeal, the Review Board.

''I sent a generic email requesting a review to three attorneys-general,'' says Melinda Tankard Reist, a commentator, former adviser to the Tasmanian independent senator Brian Harradine and the face of a new player in this field called Collective Shout. Also lobbying was Ros Phillips of FamilyVoice Australia who accuses the film of provoking ''sexual arousal by human torture''.

Neither has seen the film. Nor have I. Nor has the NSW Attorney-General. Smith told the Herald he decided to seek its review in October ''because of the decision taken by the British Board of Film Classification to refuse classification of the movie. In addition, the synopsis of the movie depicted scenes of extreme sexual violence.''

''What these people are responding to is not the film,'' Foley argues gamely. ''They are responding to our hype around the film. It is us telling the world this is the most disgusting film ever made. In actual fact it's just another movie.''

The banning of Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) exposes a strange rift among censors. Twice this year a horror movie has been passed by the Classification Board and then banned on appeal by the Review Board. The first was A Serbian Film, sent for review by the Attorney-General of South Australia, John Rau. '

'We can no longer trust in the framework and the guidelines,'' says Peter Campbell of Accent Films. He says cuts were made to the film in collaboration with the Classification Board so it could be screened in Australia. Even so, it was banned. Campbell says: ''It's getting out of hand.''

A fresh cut of Human Centipede 2 was examined by the Classification Board yesterday. Gone, we are told, are the penis wrapped in barbed wire, close-ups of the rape and the newborn baby squashed to death under the accelerator pedal. Foley will learn the board's verdict next week.

The NSW Attorney-General remains open to requests from morals groups to send books, films and video games for review. His office told the Herald: ''The AG will assess each request on a case-by-case basis, but he does not support the use of gratuitous violence, especially gratuitous sexual violence.''

 

 

December 2011: George Pell on HC2 - A bit of an Old Testament feel to those deleted scenes

Sensible Decision
Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
sydneycatholic.org, December 11, 2011

The Human Centipede II (full sequence) has recently been sent back to the Film Classification Review Board after its original R18+ classification was disputed. In this case it seems that technical skill (I'm not sure acting comes into it) has not just been squandered, but misdirected into something that brings no light to anyone, only darkness.

A good film can be a source of wonder, and not just because of the special effects. When a good director and team bring the technical marvels together with the essential elements of good acting and a good script, some very special films can result. The talents of many people are needed to bring this about, as ever-lengthening lists of credits show.

Not every film can be special and the relentless demand for "product" in our consumer society inevitably effects quality. All the same, it is sometimes a cause of regret when I think of the talent that is squandered in making a mediocre film, to say nothing of a really bad one, like The Human Centipede II.

The film was initially banned in Britain, a rare occurrence, but was subsequently released after cuts were made. These featured what the British Board of Film Classification described as "scenes of sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence and humiliation", as well as a scene of "a child presented in an abusive and violent context".

The description of the deleted scenes does not make easy reading. They included "graphic sight of a man's teeth being removed with a hammer; graphic sight of lips being stapled to naked buttocks; graphic sight of forced defecation into and around other people's mouths", a woman being raped with barbed wire; and a newborn baby being killed.

The plot, such as it is, focuses strongly on "the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure". Not the sort of film you'd hope your neighbour watches.

The review of its classification in Australia came after an application from the federal Minister for Justice, Brendan O'Connor. On 28 November the review board announced a unanimous decision to refuse the film classification, meaning it cannot be sold or shown in Australia.

Congratulations to the board and the minister on this outcome. Predictably, a few on the margins are bleating about "censorship". But most Australians will see the decision as a win for common decency and common sense.

 

 

December 2011: 30s of cuts for R18+

Facebook: 10 December 2011
Monster Pictures Australia

Good morning Monstersiders - as some of you might know, we submitted a modified version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE last week to the classification Board yesterday. The modifications have been done with the utmost care so as not to alter the integrity of the film - we will know by the end of next week what their verdict is. Needless to say it's going to be a nervous wait.

 

 

On December 13, a censored version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) was again passed with an R18+ rating. The consumer advice of 'High impact themes, violence and sexual violence' was the same as the uncut version. Monster Pictures claimed the cuts totaled 30 seconds.

 

Monster Pictures Response to the Reclassification of 'The Human Centipede 2 Full Sequence'
Press Release
monsterpictures.com.au, December 14, 2011

Monster Pictures are delighted to announce that THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE has been resubmitted to the Australian Government Classification Board and has again been granted an R 18 + certificate with consumer advice that warns 'High impact themes, violence and sexual violence'.

The film has been modified by thirty seconds, these modifications were done with the utmost care so as to not damage the integrity of the film – we are absolutely confident that this is the case.

Monster Pictures feels that this decision highlights the absurdity of Classification Review Board’s decision to ban the film in the first place.

We would like to take this opportunity to applaud the Director of the Classification Board for this decision and to express how pleased we are that the film is being judged on the merit of its content rather than the hype surrounding the film.

Melbourne’s Cinema Nova will begin screening the modified version of the film beginning Boxing Day 2011.

The DVD and Blu-Ray of the film will be released late February 2012.

Kristian Connolly, General Manager at Cinema Nova offered the following comment…

"The Australian classification system, one of the few of its type in the world, has served cinemagoers well for decades. Flip-flops such as this border on satire, recalling the shrieks of Helen Lovejoy on The Simpsons; "Won’t somebody please think of the children?!" Guess what? They did and that’s why it was rated R18+ in the first place."

 

 

Monster Pictures explained what exactly was cut from the R18+ version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE).

Facebook: 13 December 2011
Monster Pictures Australia

The close-up of the bloodied dick during the sand paper wank, the barb wire close up of the dick during the rape scene and a few mid shots during the rape scene - This is All Folks - nothing more. 30 seconds on total!!

 

 

Facebook: 14 December 2011
Monster Pictures Australia

Great news Monster Maniacs - THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: FULL SEQUENCE has been cleared by the Director of the Australian Government Classification Board with an R 18 + classification with consumer advice stating 'High impact themes, violence and sexual violence'.

This means that our little mate Martin Lomax and his nasty little pet centipede is free once again to slither his way into our depraved and corruptible little brains!!

And guess what? If you happen to be in Canberra on Friday night you can see it in all it's barely modified glory the National Film and Sound Archive's Arc Cinema http://nfsa.gov.au/arc/

This is fucking brilliant news people and we are very happy to tell you that only 30 seconds have been removed from the original cut - that is correct - 30 SECONDS - in other words FUCK ALL. Compare that to the UK where over 2 and a half minutes were removed. No wonder Martin is grinning like his centipedes shit don't sink!

Of course all this only goes to highlight the absolute absurdity of the decision of the Classification Review Board to ban the film in the first place and how in tune the Director of the Australian Government Classification Board is with current community standards in this country.

Perhaps I am quoting someone here, I can't really be sure? but in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Enjoy

 

 

December 2011: Uncut HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 made available for download

In the digital age, any attempt to ban a film is futile, and only results in publicity. Bounty Films demonstrated this by making the uncut version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) available for download.

 

Breaking Glass Pictures
December 2011

The Human Centipede 2 UNCUT: the most debated film of the year, released online to the general public in UK and Australia completely uncensored and 100% uncut.

Philadelphia based Breaking Glass Pictures is proud to announce the beta launch of it's new VOD platform Bountyfilms.com. Teaming with the Bounty Films content library, Breaking Glass will be promoting some of the best independent content in the world, starting with the highly controversial The Human Centipede 2 [Full Sequence] UNCUT. This version is completely uncensored respecting Tom Six's original unadulterated masterpiece.

This is the first time that the uncut and uncensored version is available anywhere in the world for rental and legal download - Exclusively from Bountyfilms.com.

 

Availability

Available in the UK and Australia, Bountyfilms.com aims to bring the best in cutting edge cinema straight to any device you want to view it on, be that PC/MAC, iPad, iPhone, iPod touch or almost any other device. With a range of purchase options and no contracts or minimum term, and best of all no DRM so you can watch your film anywhere, at any time, on any platform of your choice.

 

 

December 2011: HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 - review of uncut VOD service

Gary sent us his experiences of using the Bounty Films VOD service to download HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE).

Watched on hi-def, using Western Digital TV media. Blu-ray quality, and uncut with the barb wire etc all there. Cost was $14.99 U.S. but I don't mind as there will be no point in getting the Blu-ray release in Australia (for twice the cost). Because it's legit, the film makers can get dollars for their product (which makes it easier for a HUMAN CENTIPEDE 3 to get made). I am surprised other companies with 'problematic' titles don't get on board as well, but there you go. Maybe this is just the beginning.

 

This was on the download page, and explains the difference in the running times.

Question: I had previously downloaded the Cut version, which ran for a total of 88:01 minutes (including the credits and stuff)...The one I bought from this site runs only 87 minutes? I thought the fully uncut ran for 90 minutes?

Answer: The key difference here is the frame-rate at which the video is displayed. The UK Blu-ray runs at 24 frames per second so has a slightly longer run time although the film itself is actually shorter. The online version runs at 25 frames per second so the film plays slightly faster (for the record the film was shot at 25 frames a second, but this does not transfer to DVD/Blu-ray as well as 24).

 

 

December 2011: HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 - Boxing Day screening

In November, Melbourne's Cinema Nova screened the uncut version of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE). The film was back for an encore screening on Boxing Day, this time in the R18+ censored version.

 

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Cinema Nova Melbourne [au] Flyer 2

 

 

February 2012: Australian DVD released

Monster Pictures released the THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 (FULL SEQUENCE) on DVD and Blu-ray on February 23, 2012.

 

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] DVD 1The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Monster Pictures [au] DVD 2

 

 

February 2012: What was censored?

Critical Dave posted a great review and identified what was missing from the Australian censored version. Here are some of his observations.

Infamovies: The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence
daveandhiscriticisms.wordpress.com, March 21 2012

At 28:20, a 2-second shot of Martin’s penis wrapped in sandpaper as he masturbates has been excised (though not the scene, or preliminary shots of him wrapping his penis up – just the shot of it in motion).

At 1:13:47 and 1:13:55 a total of 8 seconds has been removed (1 second, and a 7 second shot) showing Martin’s penis wrapped in barbed wire before the rape.

From 1:14:00 until 1:15:09 around 20 seconds has been removed at various points from the rape scene – I started making notes of each individual shot but lost the syncing of the two version of the film playing. From what I did note, the removed shots were mainly of Martin thrusting, with less emphasis added on the victims’ suffering.

Surprisingly, the shot of the baby being crushed under the accelerator remains completely intact – I’d expected to see that excised.

The clearly noticeable difference from the Australian cut and the uncut version is the length of the rape scene – for the record, the short shots of Martin’s barbed-wired penis don’t remove the barbed wire from the entire film – we still see him holding it and picking it up right before the act, so it’s not like removing those shots make us think this is a normal acceptable rape that’s safe for children to witness. Removing a handful of shots from the rape scene does shorten its length, but to no real avail – it’s still disturbing and the character at the rear is still clearly meant to be torn apart internally with each thrust so all it means is that her screams are silenced a little earlier than in the uncut version.

 

 

February 2012: Australian version vs. Uncut version

Comparison by Troy C.
86:16 (PAL) - Monster Pictures Australian censored version. Not including the 12s Monster Pictures introduction, and web address at the end of the credits.

86:50 (PAL) - Uncut version, video-on-demand from bountyfilms.com. Not including the 12s Monster Pictures introduction.

Two scenes have been censored, with seven individual cuts. The censorship of the Australian version is relatively minor, when compared to the 27 cuts, and 3:02 that were removed from the UK BBFC 18 version.

 

Scene #1: Sandpaper Masturbation

Before: At 27:53 in both the uncut and cut versions, a close up is shown of Martin penis as he wraps it in sandpaper. Valerie says, "Why do these stupid things never work?" Close up shot of Martin’s face.

Cut #1 Missing 2s: Close-up of Martin’s penis as he masturbates with the sandpaper.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #1 Sandpaper Masterbation

After: Phone rings and Karrie says "Oh, Valerie"

 

Scene #2: Barbed Wire Rape

Before: Martin bends down and picks up the barbed wire at 73:20 in the uncut, and 73:18 in cut version. Close up of his face as he begins to wrap it around his penis.

Cut #2 Missing 2s: Close-up of Martin’s penis as he wraps it with barbed wire.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #2 Barbed Wire Rape

After/Before: Shot of the final girl in the human centipede chain. Close up of Martin's face as he continues to wrap his penis.

Cut #3 Missing 6s: A longer and more explicit close-up of his penis. Martin is then shown standing behind the girl with his erect penis wrapped in barbed wire.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #3a Barbed Wire Rape The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #3b Barbed Wire Rape

After/Before Long shot of the complete Human Centipede, with Martin beginning to kneel down behind her. He then begins to rape the final girl in the chain. This is followed by a close up shot of one of the girls as she looks up in terror.

Cut #4 Missing 3s: Martin continues thrusting.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #4 Barbed Wire Rape

After/Before: The lights flicker and the room goes dark. Long shot of Martin at the end of the Human Centipede.

Cut #5 Missing 5s: Martin continues thrusting.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #5 Barbed Wire Rape

After/Before: Close up of woman at the front, followed by a shot down the line of the Human Centipede with Martin thrusting in the distance.

Cut #6 Missing 7s: Martin continues thrusting.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #6 Barbed Wire Rape

After/Before: Close up of Dick's (the neighbour) face.

Cut #7 Missing 7s: Martin continues thrusting.

The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence (2011) - Censored #7 Barbed Wire Rape

After: Long shot of the complete Human Centipede, with Martin thrusting away at the rear. The end of the rape is then shown. Martin climaxes, and slumps on the back of the woman.

 

 

July 2012: Monster Pictures on uncut theatrical screenings and cut DVD

Monster guff for rabid Monsterphiles – a recap of everything since we last spoke
monsterpictures.com.au, July 17 2012

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2: (FULL SEQUENCE) – BANNED!

No it didn’t last long and in the end it amounted to sweet fuck all but yes it is true, in this country, in this day and age, a film made by a group of consenting adults for the entertainment of consenting adults was banned – why? Because God ordained it so! Yes that’s right, God, as represented by whacko fringe members of this countries Christian right, made a stand, he cast his gaze down upon us and declared “Get that fucking obscene rubbish from my screens now you pack of heathen cunts” and so it was, THC2 was ripped from our screens.

The truth is that THC2 was passed by the fair and well informed Australian Government Classification Board on its initial application, but we have a system in this country that if ordinary “concerned” citizens are not happy with a classification of a film they can call for that classification to be reviewed. In this case 2 groups took offense – one helmed by a hideous creature by the name of Ros Phillips from the ludicrously named Family Voice Australia (do they speak for your family?) and another by a lunatic Christian by the name of Melina Tankard Reist, called Collective Shout.

And so it was that representatives from Monster Pictures were brought before the snarling bulldogs of the Australian Classification Review Board – 3 middle-aged, middle class ladies, who are meant to represent a cross section of Australian society, and for a couple of hours, with the assistance of Jack Sargeant and Laura Crawford, we presented evidence to defend the film, evidence that in the end amounted to diddly squat – the lovely ladies of the board had made up there mind, THC2 was not fit for the consumption of the Australian Public – at least not legally, they could download it illegally if they wanted but they could not buy it legally, not on their watch – this film was smut – dangerous smut no less!

The irony of all this is that Monster Pictures were free to re-submit the offending film immediately after the hearing, so long as the film was modified in some way. Our initial response was “why, they’ll only ban it again”, but we were wrong, the film was to be assessed once again, using the very same criteria as in its initial application, by the very same Australian Government Classification Board who had passed it in the first place – with this in mind we made very token cuts – specifically a close up of a fake penis being masturbated with sandpaper, another of the same fake penis wrapped in barbed wire and a few frames of people screaming during the barbed wire rape scene – a grant total of 22 seconds in all, and guess what Monstertypes? The film was passed once again with the exact same classification that it had received in the first place.

What a pain in the arse you say? Well yes it would appear that way, but all honesty the publicity generated from the banning could not have been better – we’re a small company with not much dough to spend on advertising, we can’t pay for coverage in the mainstream media but that’s exactly what we got, and at the end of the day, the film returned with very little removed but with a lovely dose of notoriety hanging off every frame – a big thank you to Ros, Melinda and the kind ladies of the Classification Review Board.

 

 

Complaints and comments

Director's Overview
Classification Board Annual Report 2011-2012

The film The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) attracted attention during the reporting period. This film was classified, reviewed and then newly classified as a modified version. It was classified by the Classification Board in May 2011 as R 18+ Restricted, with consumer advice ‘high impact themes, violence and sexual violence’. This version of the film was then the subject of a review in November 2011, and the Classification Review Board, which is separate and independent from the Classification Board, classified the same film RC. Subsequent to the review, the applicant modified the film and submitted it for classification. The Board classified the modified version of the film R 18+, with the consumer advice ‘high impact themes, violence and sexual violence’. This version was shorter in duration than the film which was classified in May 2011.
Donald McDonald AC
Director Classification Board

 

Films and Computer Games
R18+ Restricted to 18 and over
Classification Board Annual Report 2011-2012

A modified version of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) was classified during the reporting period. This version of the film was classified R 18+ with consumer advice of ‘high impact themes, violence and sexual violence’. In this black and white film, Martin, a psychologically damaged man, develops an unhealthy obsession with the film, ‘The Human Centipede’, and becomes determined to create his own human centipede. In the opinion of the Classification Board, the film contains themes, violence and sexual violence that is high in viewing impact. The scenes of violence are graphic and detailed and include torture and surgical manipulation and may be offensive to sections of the adult community.

 

Other complaints
Classification Board Annual Report 2011-2012

A Serbian Film and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) were two films that attracted numerous complaints during the reporting period for a range of reasons. It was not clear from some of the complaints whether the complainants had viewed the films at all, or if they had, whether they had seen them at festivals, at a cinema or on DVD.

There were 12 complaints about The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). The majority of complainants wanted the film to be refused classification. Several versions of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) were classified during the reporting period. In May 2011, the Classification Board classified one version of the film R 18+ with consumer advice, ‘high impact themes, violence and sexual violence’. This version of the film was subsequently reviewed by the Classification Review Board in November 2011 and the R 18+ classification was overturned and this version of the film is classified RC.

Following the review, the distributor modified the film and in December 2011, submitted this shorter modified version for classification and the Classification Board assigned the classification of R 18+ with consumer advice of ‘high impact themes, violence and sexual violence.’

 

Film festivals
Complaints
Classification Board Annual Report 2011-2012

During 2011–12, the Director finalised 475 applications for exemptions to publicly exhibit unclassified films at film festivals and special film events. Eight complaints were received in relation to film festivals in the reporting period.

The other complaint was about the screening of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) at a festival.

 

Convenor's Overview
Classification Review Board Annual Report 2011-2012

The previous Minister for Home Affairs and Justice made two applications for review during this reporting period.

…the second application was for the review of the R 18+ classification of the film, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). The Review Board overturned the R 18+ classification decision of the Classification Board and classified both films RC. A modified version of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) was later classified R 18+ by the Classification Board.
Victoria
Rubensohn AM
Convenor

 

Complaints
Classification Review Board Annual Report 2011-2012

The Review Board received 15 complaints about its decisions.

… five complaints about The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). Complainants did not think that The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) should be refused classification.


 

 

Next Films: Hustler White (1996)  or  A to Z Listing