The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence (Tom Six, 2011)

"Maybe he's connecting the pain that a centipede inflicts with the pain inflicted on him through use of psychological and sexual abuse by his father."

Introduction

There was a point whereby I openly admitted that I would never watch this film. I knew about the sandpaper and the staple-gun, so I felt that there is a line you draw and you say no. But, people talk about it and it becomes a bit of an apple-on-the-knowledge-tree. I couldn’t judge it until I saw it and I couldn’t truly believe the horror unless I sat through it. Then Flickering Myth, a site I write for put up a request for a contributor to review it. It didn’t cost me a penny and might be a fun night. I was fearful about what I would see but, with friends, we watched. My god, what a disappointment. It could’ve been an obvious-fear-story … it could’ve been a direct sequel to the previous instalment. In many ways, it should’ve been. Seriously, I could create a better story myself. It was an example – and you need this once in a while – of a film I don’t like and what I believe cinema is not about. Maybe I knew this from the outset, but it’s good to sometimes clarify your position on cinema.'

Detached Progression (Human Centipede II)

 

As hinted at before, the open-ended finale of The Human Centipede (First Sequence) gave the impression of some-sort of scope for a sequel. Tom Six, creatively, detaches the film completely from a continuing narrative in The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) by constructing a story that depicts a character, Martin (Laurence R. Harvey), who is obsessed with the first film. At this stage, it is worth noting that I viewed the UK-version released on Blu-Ray. In that regard, key-scenes are omitted: the death of a baby and a rape using barbed-wire were two of the 32 cuts the BBFC made to the film.

 

From the very first few minutes, we are in a different world. Unlike the European flavour of the prior film, THC2 is set primarily in a car park and a council-flat. The tone therefore shifts to become almost an attempt at realism, shot in a pseudo-intelligent black-and-white palette. The complete switch from the rural context of the previous film is switched to an urban, London environment – but an urban world that has very few people within it, except for those who Martin comes into contact with. Tom Six has claimed that this huge change in tone is due to the films perspective – the first film presented from the perspective of Dr. Hieter, and the second in Martin’s dingy and dirty world.
 

So Bad it’s Bad

 

It truly is a train-wreck of a film. Conversations that it is the ‘worst-film’ of all-time are not without reason – but it is not due to the violence and horror that is presented. It seems as if Tom Six completely lost what people enjoyed about the first film. He almost mocks any type of critical-analysis of the first film as a character attempts to deconstruct the obsession Martin has with the film. This, by its attempt at psycho-analysis almost asks viewers to take the film more seriously than mere horror. Conversations, by actors of a low-standard, discuss child-abuse, psychology and the mental illness Martin has. To make matters worse, Martin is virtually mute – only relying on strange laughter, his crying and guttural noises to indicate whatever is going on in his mind.

 

We have no sympathy or understanding towards his victims as they are purely portrayed as victims and nothing more. You imagine the girls in the previous film – and the humanisation of the two as they prepare for a night-out, then get lost and walk to the house, etc. In THC2, victims appear and are kidnapped. For example, in one sequence a prostitute is kidnapped and, mid-kidnapping, the scene cuts to him placing the body in the van (Another cut scene maybe?) so that the only element of interest – How did he kidnap her? – is completely negated for a scene of him driving a van. The film became an experience simply to sit through – I didn’t know who the people really were; I didn’t care about what they were doing; I did not feel any element of tension as to what this man was ‘capable’ of. We understand he is horrible – to the point that when we hear a baby crying in one kidnapping, it’s not surprising. Of course the introduction of an infant in such a film was inevitable. The cuts scenes I am aware of would only add to the unnecessary, irrelevant scenes of torture and pain Martin creates.

 

On a personal note, I watched both films as a double-viewing alongside my brother. Following the screening, he noted how it almost came across as simply ‘attention-seeking’. I couldn’t put it better myself. As an example of this, the only element of colour follows a sequence as he injects each part of the human centipede with laxative and consequently, we see faeces burst through the staple-gunned mouth-to-anus and on the screen. Coloured brown. No rhyme or reason – simply grotesque for the sake of horror.
 

Shock-Value or Worse?

 

You could easily blame the cheap ‘shock-value’ as the core problem of the film but this isn’t the main area of concern. The problem lies in how the film virtually has no context of a world that Martin lives within; it has no characterisation to Martin as he has mental-issues and doesn’t talk. As the world and characters are so empty and silent it limits any type of bigger scope for Tom Six to work within. The positive reviews (and there are a few from Bloody Disgusting and New York Post) seem to highlight how THC2 is a response to the criticism of the first film. [SPOILERS] The ambiguous ending of THC2 gives the impression that maybe Martin himself imagined the events of the entire film – is there a hint of an idea that horror films are what you make of them? Opposed to the argument that horror-films are an excuse or scape-goat for the ills in society.

 

I’m not keen on adhering to that perspective as the film does not set-up anything to imply that this theory is justified; Tom Six could’ve tacked on the ending as an after-thought. The fact remains that Martins job is surveillance as a car park attendant. He observes on monitors the everyday life of other people – so it is worth noting how Tom Six himself worked for Endemol and on TV productions including Big Brother. The pleasure to be found in obsessing and, even eroticising, people and characters who potentially have a weakness, naivety or misplaced-arrogance in their own appearance on screen connects well with Tom Six himself – and leads itself well into an argument regarding the depiction of ‘normal’ people that reality TV can often celebrate. The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is misplaced arrogance and celebrates a type of filmmaking that lacks any artistic credibility whatsoever; much like reality TV itself.

 

The Human Centipede I: First Sequence (Tom Six, 2009)

"I'll explain this spectacular operation only once"

Introduction

Two films which have garnered huge attention in pop-culture are Tom Six’s ever-increasing-in-length The Human Centipede series (The Human Centipede III (Final Sequence) is in production). Either you assign yourself to a camp of horrified film-fans; How can a film like this be made? What an offensive and deeply unsettling idea! Etc. The second option is a camp whereby you look to the films as a strange anomaly – equally intrigued and disgusted by the ideas, but interested nevertheless. Or you are in the third camp whereby this type of B-Movie, sub-standard, ‘shock’-Horror film viewing is what is ideal for a night-in with friends. As an interesting aside, my decision to watch the films (I sit in the second camp) had criticisms from one group of film-writers who were shocked at my decision to watch the films in the first place; How can I watch F.W. Murnau’s Sunrise one day and then watch this the next? Then I had a different group of film-writers who, by the same token, were equally shocked – but because it was a niche-genre; one which they pride themselves on their own in-depth knowledge of. In both cases, the decision to watch the film on my part is a strange one – but why not? A film represents the filmmaker and, if successful, it represents an interest on the part of the audience. What is it that has drawn viewers to this film – is it merely the shock value or something more?

The B-Movie ‘Human Centipede’

The trappings of a B-Movie are evident from the very start in The Human Centipede (First Sequence). Small cast, young-and-attractive teenagers lost on a road-trip … they approach a strange house which, we already know, contains a sinister character. So far, so-very “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. The story rolls along with such an obvious narrative, you feel as if the idea of ‘The Human Centipede’ came first and the story later. I can imagine Tom Six sitting at a laptop realising that the ‘shock’ idea of a ‘Human Centipede’ would be fascinating in-and-of itself – the story surrounding it would be more difficult. Indeed, the release in 2010 of the ‘first sequence’ is hot-on-the-heels of Saw and the various films of the torture-porn genre. Unlike many (but not all) of these films, The Human Centipede is set primarily in one house and the clinical implements are highlighted from the outset. The vast majority of the ‘horror’ comes from what we know he has, does and will do. We don’t see anything explicitly. In that regard, the film is intelligent as it hints at the surgeon-like precision that Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) clearly excels in.

In 2012, it even predates the exceptional skill of Antonio Banderas’ doctor in The Skin I Live In and could be influenced by the twin brothers in Cronenbergs body-horror Dead Ringers. In both cases, we are horrified by the insanity of their genius – Banderas using his skin-grafting skills for evil; Jeremy Irons using their gynaecological knowledge to create ‘gynaecological instruments for mutant women’. We look at the clinical implements in the room with horror as we understand what they do – but do not see them in use. We definitely don’t see their use-of-purpose. In The Human Centipede, we don’t see his skill in merging each human together; we don’t see the attachment between anus and mouth. We do see his exquisite explanation of what he will do – and a child-like drawing to clarify, before they wake up connected. By that point, the camera would have to be in a pretty strange position to clearly show the stitched-up connection.

A Fear of Foreigners

Akin to Hostel, the fear of foreigners may play a part too.  Therefore the characterisation is something to explore further; is the nationality of the characters purposeful? Is Dr. Heiter preying on a deeply-rooted, but archaic, fear of Nazi-Germany, and the experiments within concentration camps? Are the two lead females purely selected for their target-market appeal; the attractive-women running in fear from the monster? Is the Asian character who leads the centipede chosen purely for his lack of communication-skills, as he speaks a different language? These are all possibilities. I could even theorise that it is a representation of a European feeding off, and abusing, the Asian-American combined-power, as the victims initially reached the continent with only token gestures of respect towards European culture and economic stability. It’s a huge step, granted – but interesting to consider nevertheless.

Despite the obvious expectations of the film, it ultimately seems to create a story whereby we are engaged by the mad-doctor and we are equally voyeurs in watching how the film will end: do they survive? How can they survive? An ambiguous ending leaves the film in an enviable position as it could continue. Key-characters fail to survive, but the question remains as to how the character remaining will continue their life. I would be hard-pushed to recommend it – but if you are after a fun night-in with some obvious thrills and shocks, alongside a gross-idea acted out, then by all means; hunt the film out.

Too Violent? Too Late.

Christopher Tookey of The Daily Mail seems to have highlighted something that I think we all know has some truth ...

"Anyone who thinks violent pornography is harmless and cathartic is deluded. The rise of the internet means any one country’s attempt to maintain some minimal standards of decency can be of only limited effectiveness.

Differences of culture means there will always be some country in which selling this kind of pornography will be not only permitted, but encouraged. There is more money than ever to be made out of exploiting people’s weaknesses and perversions.

However, there can be no doubt the BBFC’s refusal to grant an 18 certificate to the few films it has stood up to must have made those productions less profitable and decreased their availability. "

Read the whole article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055937/Christopher-Tookey-Its-just-internet-thats-violent-porn--cinemas.html#ixzz1cYDbaer7

I think it is quite clear that what was deemed an 18-rated film way back in the 90's and, even, the 80's would now be deemed a 15. Many have been changed sicne their release to DVD but I think what it is determining, is the inevitable change in attitude towards an 18-rated film. It used to be an 18 had adult content, now it seems that it is a film with something particularly offensive - you know that, if it is rated 18, you can expect something to shock or use something in a gratutious way. The Passion of the Christ, Saw, Grindhouse, Inglourious Basterds, Hostel and Eastern Promises. I'll bet, without thinking, we can all pin-point the moment/scene the films moved from to 18-rated material.

But, take Zodiac (rated 15), though not gratutious in its use of violence ... it is adult in its content of a serial-killer investigation (SPOILER: Of a killer who may/may not be still out there...) and some scenes hint enough to get under your skin. I would argue moreso than many of the 18-rated films above. Shutter Island, though not gratuituous, there is enough to deem it 'adult' in its nature to garner it an 18 certificate - psychological madness, corrupted-protaganists, murder, child death, depiction of fire on a body, etc.

As an adult, I will happily watch violent films (unlike Tookey, who seems to believe it is wrong) - I watched every Saw film theatrically - but, we must be realistic about how the BBFC has changed in recent years and consider the reasons why... and the repurcussions.

The Simon and Jo Film Show: 02/05/2010

From a park in Camden, Simon and Jo begin this weeks podcast. Tackling the news about the new Robin Hood, Batman 3 and Mickey Rourke followed by a review of Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2 that features, no other than Mickey Rourke and Robert Downey Jnr.

The London box-office is an opportunity to raise concerns and the Bangor Rep gets his view squeezed in to boot.

Finally, we discuss three trailers - namely The Human Centipede, Buried and Jonah Hex - which are easy enough to see on YouTube. And, while you're on YouTube, check out our 'channel' for The Simon and Jo Film Show.

Shout Out to Encores World of TV and Film - a great blog if ever I knew one.

Music is AC/DC and, obviously, from Iron Man 2...