Human Centipede 2 and BBFC

Initially banned in Australia, then passed with 30 seconds of cuts; initially banned in Britain (as potentially breaching the Obscene Publications Act) - the distributor appealed to the Video Appeals Committee but also proposed limited cuts to the BBFC, who came back with 32 cuts of over 2 mins ... and Bounty/Eureka agreed, and withdrew the appeal. released unrated and uncut in the US, and long available on DVD and Blu-Ray from the US.



Is THIS the most disturbing, dangerous film of recent years?

The BBFC initially banned it, one of only 3 to receive this fate this decade - see the Wiki list of UK banned movies list fragment below.

2011	The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)	Originally banned due to highly explicit sexual violence, graphic forced defecation, and potential obscenity. The film was given an official age certificate of 18 by the BBFC on 6 October 2011 while the distributors agreed to make 32 cuts (two minutes and thirty-seven seconds) prior to release.[73][74][75][76]
2011–present	The Bunny Game	Banned due to extreme levels of sexual violence. The excessive endorsement and eroticisation of sexual violence deemed the film to be unacceptable for its potential for being highly harmful under the Video Recordings Act 1984.[77]
2015–present	Hate Crime	Banned as it focused on "the terrorisation, mutilation, physical and sexual abuse and murder of the members of a Jewish family by the Neo Nazi thugs who invade their home."[78]

ISSUES RAISED:
IS BANNING (not cutting) ACCEPTABLE? SHOULD ADULTS BE ALLOWED TO CHOOSE, WITH BBFC INFORMATION?

IS BANNING EFFECTIVE? (US DVDs, VoD, illegal download, VPNs, etc)

DO BANS SIMPLY PUBLICISE A MOVIE?

IS DISTRIBUTOR/EXHIBITOR FOCUS ON TENTPOLES A GREATER FORM OF CENSORSHIP?

SHOULD SEXUAL VIOLENCE BE SEEN AS EXCEPTIONALLY BAD? DOES THIS OVERLOOK ISSUES WITH GENERAL VIOLENT CINEMA?

IS THE OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS ACT ACCEPTABLE TODAY? HOW CAN OBSCENE BE OBJECTIVELY JUDGED?

BBFC JUDGEMENT, EVEN WITH CUTS, IS BASED ON POTENTIAL HARM - WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR MEDIA EFFECTS?

WOULD AN R18 BE A SUITABLE COMPROMISE?

IS THE BBFC REALLY THE HIDDEN HAND OF THE GOVERNMENT?

DID THE ELECTION OF TORIES IN 2010 CAUSE A SHIFT IN BBFC ATTITUDE?

BBFC DECISIONS CAN BE CHALLENGED THROUGH THE VIDEO APPEALS COMMITTEE (AND OVERTURNED BY LOCAL COUNCILS)

DOES THIS SHOW BBFC IS SUPERIOR TO SECRETIVE MPAA?

MORAL PANIC: PRESS COVERAGE MADE LINK WITH 'TORTURE PORN'; MAIL EVEN LINKED TO 1996 CRASH CONTROVERSY



WIKI SUMMARY:

In June 2011, the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) refused to classify The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) for a direct-to-video release, effectively meaning that the film could not legally be supplied in any format in the UK.^[16]The BBFC had given the preceding First Sequence title an 18 certificate.^[17] The board stated that they had considered First Sequence to be "undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting",^[18] but deemed it acceptable for release because the "centipede" was the product of a "revolting medical experiment".^[18] They had also taken legal advice that First Sequence was not in breach of the Obscene Publications Act.^[19] 

By contrast, the BBFC report on Full Sequence stated that the film's content was too extreme for an 18 certificate and was "sexually violent and potentially obscene".^[20] The board members felt that the centipede of Full Sequence existed purely as "the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy".^[18] They criticised the film for making "little attempt to portray any of the victims... 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"^[21] and stated their opinion that the film was potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Act.^[16] The BBFC stated that they would not reclassify the film in the future, as "no amount of cuts would allow them to give it a certificate".^[16] 

Six responded to the BBFC's decision in a statement released the next day to Empire magazine. Six criticised the BBFC for including film spoilers in their report, and stated that the film was "...fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief (sic). It is art..." and that viewers should be able to choose for themselves whether or not they decided to view the film.^[22] Six also referred to the BBFC's refusal to classify the film as "exceptional".^[22][23]In October 2011, the BBFC granted the film an 18 certificate after 32 compulsory cuts totalling 2 minutes and 37 seconds were made. The cuts included: [access the full entry here if you want to read the list; graphic terms are used]

SELECTED QUOTES - each highlights an issue

Company was required to make 32 individual cuts to scenes of sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence and humiliation, and a child presented in an abusive and violent context. (BBFC Insight entry, NB: goes on to a short graphic description of cuts)

The BBFC decision has startled many, with some even suggesting that in this new Conservative era, censorship has become politically fashionable once more. (David Cox argues it was a political decision - reflecting Julian Petley's argument that the BBFC does government work without the government being held accountable)

How can it be that adults are not allowed to choose whether or not to see a film? It really felt like Britain was behaving like China. This kind of censorship is ridiculous. ... [M]any British people are becoming furious with this organisation, because they feel that it is treating adults as children.
(Director Tom Six questions the right to restrict adult choice) 

those who want it will do what everyone did when A Clockwork Orange was withdrawn by its director in this country: order an "import" Region 1 DVD online. (David Cox: is film censorship pointless in the digital age?) 

it is unstoppable anyway. In our age of the internet, people will just buy their copies from overseas or download it illegally. The film will be seen in the UK. The BBFC is not of this time. (UK distributor Eureka back Cox's point)

Through their chosen course of action, the BBFC have ensured that the awareness of this film is now greater than it would otherwise have been. (Distributor Eureka say BBFC ban was self-defeating: it actually increased the audience!)

Internet threats might have prevented production:

BBFC background and cases

Main blogging is on the MediaReg blog (BBFC tag), eg this overview post.
A new overview will be added.

SAMPLE BBFC RATING: THE 12A

Question: why is there is a separate 12A for cinema only (12 for DVD/Blu-Ray)? [BBFC guide]


THE BBFC WEBSITE
Very student-friendly, and also intended to be highly parent friendly, this has details on every new rating, detailed explanations of the current ratings, and case studies on controversial rulings.
For now, visit the site and note:

1. the names of each BBFC age rating
2. the key differences between the 12/12A, 15 and 18 rating: focus on the issues of SEX, VIOLENCE, SWEARING

PAST CONTROVERSIES

Some useful historical examples to illustrate how ratings systems evolve over time.

Take each trailer below and note which rating you'd give it (explaining why).

Afterwards you can check out the BBFC site links on these, but have a go at rating them first.

This BBC overview will also be helpful - after you've worked through the examples below: Banned Movies (2011)

1: THE WILD ONE (1953)

BBFC case study.

BBFC recent cases

TBC:
Paddington
Wild Tales
Fifty Shades of Grey
Hunger Games
(Dark Knight franchise;
Human Centipede franchise)


The BBFC has remained relatively uncontroversial in recent times, although its 2014 report, widely interpreted as a relaxing of restrictions, especially at the 12/15 level, did attract a lot of flak from the right-wing press. The Daily Mail can always be relied upon for a good moral panic; here are the top results from a google of 'daily mail bbfc':

The Mail even managed to link the BBFC's liberalism (free market principles?!) with terrorism, though intriguingly didn't mention the BBFC once during this article:

...

PRIVACY LIBEL Paisley name and shame racist ranters

The Paisley Daily Express (that's a Scottish city near Glasgow) has faced threats of lawsuits and had 'an office visit' since taking the bold decision to name social media posters who expressed extreme views on 50 reguees being housed in the area.

These may well fall foul of hate crime laws, which have seen jail terms handed out - most frequently for racist abuse of footballers such as Stan Collymore (retired, now a TalkSport Radio commentator).

Is this compatible with the Editor's Code clauses on privacy?

Yes. The people named and shamed posted on public forums, particularly Facebook, from where the paper got biographical details and pictures. They clearly hadn't set their profiles to private.

It's worth comparing this to the NoTW's past name and shame campaigns, which at best bent the law, never mind the Code clause, and quite purposefully whipped up a moral panic which saw paediatricians attacked by illiterate mobs.

See article. NB: features asterisked strong language.

CHILDREN Hate Mail forced onto top shelf...

No, not really, but as with the MonkeyDust animated satire "Curtisland", this is rather instructive. Chris Morris would surely approve. The absurd red-top response to his 'Paedogeddon' Brass Eye special, alongside articles telling us 15 year-old Charlotte Church was "chest swell", is a great demonstration of the moral panic concept (most notably studied by John Springhall [see book cover below], building on Stanley Cohen's defining work, Folk Devils and Moral Panics).

http://newsthump.com/2014/06/05/daily-mail-to-become-top-shelf-publication-to-protect-children-from-extremism/.

This is a fascinating read

'Shock' as J-Lo posterior causes BGT 'outrage'

BGT and its ilk rely on heavy tabloid/mid-market coverage to maintain buzz, with social media coverage also important. On either side, it came as no surprise that the ritual shock at [insert female pop star name]'s

J-Lo forgot her skirt shocker [pic source]

revealing costume and sexual dance routine was duly sparked by the 2013 BGT final. J-Lo, like a certain Middleton sister, may have talents in other areas, but a large chunk of her fame is accounted for by her derriere, which the media have been unironically salivating over for many years now. BGT judge Amanda Holden remarked she'd like to "bite" this lucrative posterior.
J-Lo, as she usually does (just like Rihanna and Xtina, subject of previous shock and outrage narratives from X Factor/BGT appearances), appeared scantily clad, maximising the famed appeal of her rear. Her dance routine, as it (and the vast majority of pop dance routines) usually does, featured sexually imitative gyrations. Standards really have slipped in today's media, they weren't like that in the good ol' days ... which is true so long as you completely ignore the inconvenient fact that such outrages go back to the early beginnings of pop on TV: hip shakes got Elvis into trouble back in the 50s, and Jim Morrison's groin thrusts got The Doors banned from The Ed Sullivan Show in the 60s.
Back to today though.
Here's an excerpt from The Evening Standard, a London daily now owned by Lebvedev (Russian Indie):

It wouldn't have happened in the good ol' days...

owner of the

Wearing thigh-high black boots and a tiny black leotard that struggled to cover her famous posterior, her performance finished with her thrusting her crotch at the judges.
Viewers took to Twitter to express their disgust at her raunchy routine, which took place as schools across the country were on half term holiday.

Jim Morrison's groin thrust got The Doors into trouble too

Note the standard press tactic of weaving together two unrelated facts to make the story appear more sensational: J-Lo' appearance/dance took place whilst children were on hols!!!!! OMG and so forth. First of all, the bulk of moral panics either involve children misbehaving (often a technophobic kneejerk from those being left bewildered by technological advancements) or being corrupted. The real story here might have been about the exploitation of child performers, vulnerable to media exposure and every episode of which goes out on weekends, when kids are always off school, was being watched by kids ... on holiday ... just as they would if they weren't on holiday. Wow!
ridicule, by the Simon Cowell juggernaut for profit. But, no, BGT,
This isn't to say that there isn't a case to answer, and OfCom has previously warned broadcasters to respect the watershed following similar cases, but we can see here how the press manipulate their discourse to try and whip up outrage, and ideally manufacture a moral panic.

If you're not convinced that such whipped up press hysteria isn't anything new, try this NME list of 44 controversial moments in pop history.

DMail, ParentsTVCncl + Moral Panic

Simple example of how our press seek on a daily basis to whip up fresh moral panics to keep its (mostly older) readers in a righteous froth over declining moral standards, young people today and all that good stuff. The source here is the satirical Lost in Showbiz blog from The Guardian - a good example of how broadsheets juggle the demands of retaining their reputation for hard news whilst covering celebrity and other soft news that draws in huge numbers online (and often features on the print front page trails too). Just look at how often the X Factor is featured! 

NB: The article below contains some explicit sexual references.

This example shows how the Mail rather preposterously cited "how even the Parents Television Council" took offence at a portion of the Graham Norton Show New Year special, using this as a means of justifying attacking a favourite target of the right-wing press: the BBC, bastion of public service broadcasting and thus a challenge to the dominance of free market ideology through its very existence.

Parents 'fuming' at Kathy Griffin's on-air sexual antics on New Year's Eve

When the US comedian simulated fellatio on her co-host live on CNN, not everyone was amused.

Alexis Petridis, 3.1.13, http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2013/jan/03/parents-fuming-kathy-griffins-sexual

Kathy Griffin, whose simulated oral sex didn’t go down well on US TV. Photograph: Jeffrey Ufberg/WireImage

And so to America, where something of a storm appears to have blown up over CNN's live coverage of events in New York's Times Square on New Year's Eve. The programme was considerably enlivened by comedian Kathy Griffin referring to the fiscal cliff as "the fisting cliff", then repeatedly dropping to her knees and pretending to simulate fellatio on her visibly unamused co-host Anderson Cooper: "I'm going down, you know you want to," she told him. "I'm kissing your sardine."
Lost in Showbiz confesses that, at first, it thought this all sounded pretty funny. Indeed, it ruefully reflected that it sounded substantially more entertaining than anything on British TV on the night of 31 December. How much more interesting would Graham Norton's interview with Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood of The Great British Bake Off have been if the Grande Dame of the pithivier and petits fours had taken a leaf out of Griffin's book, suddenly grasped Hollywood's testicles and announced: "I'm tickling your sac"?
That was, of course, until it read the Daily Mail's take on events and was swiftly forced to reconsider. Keen as ever not to create an unnecessary furore, the Mail reported that "Many failed to see the funny side of her antics and branded her behaviour 'vile' and 'putrid'." To underline the seriousness of the offence, it added: "Even the Parents Television Council got involved and is said to be 'fuming'."
Lost In Showbiz must admit that it had never heard of the Parents Television Council, but it was intrigued – mostly by the use of the word "even" in the Mail's report. This suggested that it must be an organisation renowned for its restraint, which would start "fuming" only when faced with the most unbearable provocation. It definitely is not to be confused with, say, The Arnica Network, which recently orchestrated a campaign against the BBC,

BuffTheBanana.co.uk skewer Mail's hypocrisy

USEFUL TERM: CLICKBAIT - the practice of using celebrity names in article, or tags or images, to attract online hits. Provocative opinion pieces can also achieve this by attracting large numbers of (angry!) comments.

The language is a little crude, but the point is simple enough: the site seeks to explore what it sees as the hypocrisy of the socially conservative, pro-censorship, routinely morally outraged Mail and its extensive use of pornographic-style paparazzi shots. Here's the site's own description:

Buff the Banana with Paul Dacre is here to help you locate the most titillating content from the Daily Mail, without the fear of coming across something offensive.
Buff exists to show how Paul Dacre has exploited pornography to draw in readers. As Olivia Lichtenstein, the tabloid’s de facto erotica correspondent explains, ‘pornography today permeates society… [and] it’s addictive as cocaine’.
If you’re looking for good quality photos of celebrities frolicking in their bikinis or stripped down to the latest designer lingerie, Buff the Banana with Paul Dacre is for you. Many of the shots are candid, often taken ‘Peeping Tom style’ with a long lens.
Probably the most effective newspaper editor of his generation (read the biography), Paul Dacre is best known for creating a populist tabloid, famed for its right wing views and staunch social conservatism. But this is well documented elsewhere.
Under Paul Dacre’s leadership, the Daily Mail has worked hard to bring you the results of the ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ that so often cause celebrities to reveal a little more than intended – like a nipple. Visitors looking for something a little harder, should check out the upskirts. A little girl-on-girl action never goes amiss and there is often something for the ladies.

Clicking through to one of these, there was a particularly example of this willingness to use sexually titillating material, and even headlines, to drive traffic/hits in one of the sidebar stories: see the screenshot picture below, taken 20.5.12.

The 'story' is simply that this celeb (I'm assuming she's 'famous') has a large chest and wore a tight jumper.

Sorry we said you raped a 14-year-old

Last post for this morning, again coming from a Tabloid Watch blog report. It speaks for itself, but note that it reflects that tawdry reporting values are not a left/right issue: this eg comes from a Sunday paper published by Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN):

Sorry we said you raped a 14-year-old

The natural father of Peter Connelly (Baby P) has been awarded substantial damages after The People accused him of being a sex offender who had been convicted of raping a 14-year-old girl.

MediaGuardian reports:

Mr Justice Bean ordered Mirror Group Newspapers, publisher of the People, to pay an initial £30,000 in damages plus costs of £35,000. The damages payout will rise to £75,000 if the publisher loses permission to take the ruling to the court of appeal.

The allegations were contained in two paragraphs in a crime supplement in the People about Baby P's mother, who had separated from the child's father, referred to in court as KC. They appeared in a 19 September 2010 article headed "Tortured to death as mum turned a blind eye"...

Bean said in his written judgment: "It is difficult to think of any charge more calculated to lead to the revulsion and condemnation of a person's fellow citizens than the rape of a 14-year-old girl."

KC said in his witness statement that he was "shocked and upset beyond words" by the false libel, which he first learned about in phone calls from close friends.

The judge said the appropriate starting point for the damages was £150,000. But he reduced this by half, to £75,000 because Mirror Group Newspapers moved swiftly to apologise and correct the error.

The Independent added:

Heather Rogers QC, appearing for MGN [Mirror Group Newspapers], told the High Court hearing: "This was a mistake that MGN regrets and it has apologised to the claimant, and I repeat that apology on its behalf in this court."

However, she denied KC had been badly treated, or that MGN had conducted any kind of "campaign" against him, or dismissed his legitimate complaint.

Today, Ms Rogers argued that MGN should be allowed to appeal on the grounds that the compensation order was too high and "disproportionate". 

Posted by MacGuffin at 19:05 0 comments

Hate Mail - some satirical vids on Daily Mail

The paper that published the Jan Moir column on Gateley, not to mention the example we've studied of the schoolgirl whose thighs they helpfully featured in close-up, is nicknamed the 'Hate Mail' by some (generally left-leaning or liberal folk) for its editorial stance (views) on race, sexuality, gender etc. An extremely influential paper, the current and previous government pay close attention to what it says and strive to avoid receiving flak from it - a rather ridiculous stance for the supposedly left-wing Labour government, but more understandable from a right-wing Tory administration.
The following are just a few of the satirical vids you can find on YouTube on this paper, which once delighted in supporting the Nazis and the UK equivalent, Mosley's brownshirts. Whether you agree with the views it expresses or not, they are worth being aware of as an example of the narrow ideological range of our national press, but also for the paper's reputation as the "voice of middle England". As with any satirical text, boundaries are pushed; please be aware before choosing to watch these that some of the material is 'edgy'.

See also the blog http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/

It may be worth considering whether such vids at least attempt to perform a scrutinising duty that the PCC fails to...



This one pushes it as far as it goes, adding new subtitles to a drama about Hitler's final days; I won't embed it but you can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIRbcIVKeXk&feature=related
Less contentiously, Bill Oddie delivers a swipe at the Mail, also a target for Irish nationalists.
Here we have a BBC show responding to a characteristic Mail attack on the BBC; their points on why the Mail, Murdoch press etc routinely attack the BBC (at the end of the sketch) are useful:

This is a rather safer option: footage from the Select Committee exploring the issue of privacy, with DMail editor Paul Dacre on the spot:

The level of taste here is questionable, but ultimately the comedian Russell Howard simply utilises actual stories from the Mail, providing one example of how it can create moral panics:

Remember the outcry over the Ross/Brand show? Here's how Russell Brand responded to the Mail's coverage (it features shots of historical pro-Nazi Mail articles):

Perhaps sharpest of all is this sketch from a BBc3 show:


One final point on this; the Mail is something of an easy target, but is an outstanding success in commercial and cultural terms - the owners may not be as powerful as Murdoch but the Mail has become a paper that politicians pay close attention to. It shares many traits with The S*n, and is emblematic of the largely right-wing nature of our national press. Remember though what Curran and Seaton were trying to flag up: for long periods Britain was dominated by a 'radical press' (generally left-wing), with the various steps which are conventionally proclaimed as having achieved press freedom actually, in their eyes, consciously creating the near-exclusive right-wing press we see today.