Censorship and Centipedes
Jun. 9th, 2011 12:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerThe British Board of Film Classification has found itself in the news because, very exceptionally, it has refused to classify a film. The Human Centipede II is, as its title suggests, a sequel to the body-horror film The Human Centipede, a film that seems to have attracted much revulsion, some praise, but little actual condemnation. THC2, by contrast, was avowedly declared by its director to be intended to be as graphic and disturbing as possible. Exactly how graphic and disturbing is conveyed in the BBFC's press release, which some may find unpleasant enough reading in itself.
I've seen and heard varying views on this. Widespread disgust is a common one, but it's often caveated with a concern that, well, censorship is wrong. So, is it right to, in effect, ban a film, however horrific it is?
(One immediate point I'll make is that, yes, the BBFC has effectively banned THC2. I know the BBFC says it 'classifies' films, but outright refusal to classify a work is a de facto ban on any form of commercial distribution. Let's not beat around the bush: the BBFC has censored THC2, and lets address that squarely rather than pretend otherwise.)
I'm going to defend the state's right, in extremis, to do that. Why? I'm not a believer in absolutes, because absolutes imply simplicity, and people are not simple.
When I was studying mathematics, I learned about trivial solutions. A mathematical model of a physical situation will incorporate a number of variables - factors you can set to different values - and very often what you are looking for is the particular combination of values that will produce a desired result. It is often the case that you can get some form of solution by setting one or more of the variables to zero, but the result is rarely realistic, useful or interesting.
As an example, take the population dynamics of a predator/prey ecosystem. If you model the way in which populations of, say, foxes and rabbits interact, you can predict the cyclic variation of fox and rabbit populations. The maths is complicated, but it's obvious that you get a valid solution by setting the population of both foxes and rabbits to be zero. This starting point satisfies the mathematical model perfectly well, but tells us exactly nothing, because (quite obviously) the population of both will stay zero. This solution is accurate, realistic and yet useless. It is a trivial solution to the problem.
You can imagine society as encompassing variables, such as personal freedom, degree of government economic control, and so on. This, I must stress, is an extremely crude metaphor for society, but it has some essence of truth in it. I have therefore long been suspicious of ideologies that in effect turn one or more of these variables all the way up or down, such as libertarianism or communism. Such ideologies are in my view the political equivalent of trivial solutions; if they work at all, they do so by throwing away most of the richness and variety of human society. At the risk of being a little cynical, I'm not surprised that the most insistent advocates of such ideologies I've encountered often seem to be people who are rather socially challenged; finding people difficult and annoyingly complicated, they seek to flatten them into something simpler.
So, I don't trust simple, end-point approaches to dealing with social issues. And freedom of speech is one of these issues. To me, absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that simply isn't realistic in a society comprised of real humans. Tempting as it is to say that people shouldn't be offended by material, or should always deal rationally and critically with material that upsets them, or should know better than to allow themselves to be affected by it, that's not how everyone works.
What I do believe in is strong freedom of speech. Unless there are very strong grounds to the contrary, people should be free to express political, religious and moral positions, even when they are distressing or shocking to others. Nonetheless, I maintain that in a real society of real people, such strong grounds can sometimes exist. In this, I follow the drafters of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Life is not simple or straightforward, and there is almost always a balance to be struck. This balance may be strongly weighted towards freedom, but the fulcrum is going to be there if you look hard. In the context of the BBFC, I'd suggest that a record of refusing classification to a literal handful of films of over ten thousand rated in the last three decades indicates that the balance is very weighted towards liberalism. Indeed, from the BBFC's own statistics, for the last decade it has passed 98% or more films with no proposed cuts at all.
(In the early 1970s, mind you, the BBFC cut around 30% of films. I'd imagine this was due to a less liberal environment and a less flexible classification system to fit films into.)
There seems no doubt that THC2 is a very extreme film indeed. The director sets out to focus on sexual degradation and violation for its own sake. In a society where we have very real concerns about sexual violence and in particular the tendency for its perpetrators to depersonalise victims, that is genuinely concerning. I'll note that these days the BBFC has little if any concern with passing films that depict consensual sexual behaviour with a violent or sadistic element, although it will do so with a special R18 rating. It is objectifying, degrading material that the BBFC has issues with, particularly where it forms the central theme of a work rather than just an element of it.
If I have a concern about the effective banning of THC2, it's that it will have garnered this nasty piece of work far more publicity than it would ever have got had it been given even the most restrictive rating. Perhaps we need a super-duper-R18 rating, which I fancy might allow supply of a film on VHS only via a designated outlet on an industrial estate in Mold. (Collect in person only, opening hours 2-4 pm alternate Mondays.) As it is, P2P will ensure that the film circulates in the UK, although at least the director won't make any money from this.
To sum up, I'll vigorously defend freedom of speech, but I'll also quietly endorse the state's right to limit the very extremes - so long as they are extremes - of its expression.
In the meantime, I'll point at this discussion of THC and its sequel on MetaFilter. When I saw it had four hundred comments I imagined a massive debate on censorship. No, within ten comments someone had suggested far better possible sequel crossovers with other films, and things ran off into the distance with the likes of Eternal Sunshine of the Human Centipede, Carry On Up The Human Centipede, All The President's Human Centipedes... all of which I might actually want to watch.
I've seen and heard varying views on this. Widespread disgust is a common one, but it's often caveated with a concern that, well, censorship is wrong. So, is it right to, in effect, ban a film, however horrific it is?
(One immediate point I'll make is that, yes, the BBFC has effectively banned THC2. I know the BBFC says it 'classifies' films, but outright refusal to classify a work is a de facto ban on any form of commercial distribution. Let's not beat around the bush: the BBFC has censored THC2, and lets address that squarely rather than pretend otherwise.)
I'm going to defend the state's right, in extremis, to do that. Why? I'm not a believer in absolutes, because absolutes imply simplicity, and people are not simple.
When I was studying mathematics, I learned about trivial solutions. A mathematical model of a physical situation will incorporate a number of variables - factors you can set to different values - and very often what you are looking for is the particular combination of values that will produce a desired result. It is often the case that you can get some form of solution by setting one or more of the variables to zero, but the result is rarely realistic, useful or interesting.
As an example, take the population dynamics of a predator/prey ecosystem. If you model the way in which populations of, say, foxes and rabbits interact, you can predict the cyclic variation of fox and rabbit populations. The maths is complicated, but it's obvious that you get a valid solution by setting the population of both foxes and rabbits to be zero. This starting point satisfies the mathematical model perfectly well, but tells us exactly nothing, because (quite obviously) the population of both will stay zero. This solution is accurate, realistic and yet useless. It is a trivial solution to the problem.
You can imagine society as encompassing variables, such as personal freedom, degree of government economic control, and so on. This, I must stress, is an extremely crude metaphor for society, but it has some essence of truth in it. I have therefore long been suspicious of ideologies that in effect turn one or more of these variables all the way up or down, such as libertarianism or communism. Such ideologies are in my view the political equivalent of trivial solutions; if they work at all, they do so by throwing away most of the richness and variety of human society. At the risk of being a little cynical, I'm not surprised that the most insistent advocates of such ideologies I've encountered often seem to be people who are rather socially challenged; finding people difficult and annoyingly complicated, they seek to flatten them into something simpler.
So, I don't trust simple, end-point approaches to dealing with social issues. And freedom of speech is one of these issues. To me, absolute freedom of speech is an ideal that simply isn't realistic in a society comprised of real humans. Tempting as it is to say that people shouldn't be offended by material, or should always deal rationally and critically with material that upsets them, or should know better than to allow themselves to be affected by it, that's not how everyone works.
What I do believe in is strong freedom of speech. Unless there are very strong grounds to the contrary, people should be free to express political, religious and moral positions, even when they are distressing or shocking to others. Nonetheless, I maintain that in a real society of real people, such strong grounds can sometimes exist. In this, I follow the drafters of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
Article 10 – Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Life is not simple or straightforward, and there is almost always a balance to be struck. This balance may be strongly weighted towards freedom, but the fulcrum is going to be there if you look hard. In the context of the BBFC, I'd suggest that a record of refusing classification to a literal handful of films of over ten thousand rated in the last three decades indicates that the balance is very weighted towards liberalism. Indeed, from the BBFC's own statistics, for the last decade it has passed 98% or more films with no proposed cuts at all.
(In the early 1970s, mind you, the BBFC cut around 30% of films. I'd imagine this was due to a less liberal environment and a less flexible classification system to fit films into.)
There seems no doubt that THC2 is a very extreme film indeed. The director sets out to focus on sexual degradation and violation for its own sake. In a society where we have very real concerns about sexual violence and in particular the tendency for its perpetrators to depersonalise victims, that is genuinely concerning. I'll note that these days the BBFC has little if any concern with passing films that depict consensual sexual behaviour with a violent or sadistic element, although it will do so with a special R18 rating. It is objectifying, degrading material that the BBFC has issues with, particularly where it forms the central theme of a work rather than just an element of it.
If I have a concern about the effective banning of THC2, it's that it will have garnered this nasty piece of work far more publicity than it would ever have got had it been given even the most restrictive rating. Perhaps we need a super-duper-R18 rating, which I fancy might allow supply of a film on VHS only via a designated outlet on an industrial estate in Mold. (Collect in person only, opening hours 2-4 pm alternate Mondays.) As it is, P2P will ensure that the film circulates in the UK, although at least the director won't make any money from this.
To sum up, I'll vigorously defend freedom of speech, but I'll also quietly endorse the state's right to limit the very extremes - so long as they are extremes - of its expression.
In the meantime, I'll point at this discussion of THC and its sequel on MetaFilter. When I saw it had four hundred comments I imagined a massive debate on censorship. No, within ten comments someone had suggested far better possible sequel crossovers with other films, and things ran off into the distance with the likes of Eternal Sunshine of the Human Centipede, Carry On Up The Human Centipede, All The President's Human Centipedes... all of which I might actually want to watch.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-08 11:58 pm (UTC)We effectively have your super-duper R18 - distribution only by illegal P2P.
Pretty sure as you say this film has the kind of publicity money can't buy now.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 12:00 am (UTC)Having seen THC I'd say it teeters on the edge of what actually is acceptable. I've a pretty strong stomach and I genuinely felt a mixture of nausea and disgust watching it. The interesting perspective is that in reality it isn't actually all that graphic.
Making a graphic version of a thought provoking but frankly pretty disgusting movie really does seem a waste of everybodies time and effort.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 12:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 02:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 05:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 06:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 07:05 am (UTC)You say that if rules start to seem arbitrary people are less likely to obey them. That is not an issue in this case. The classification of films can seem as arbitrary as you like but film distributors will still obey (complain but obey). Film viewers could come to see the classifications as absurd and ignore them. I would bet that any mechanistic rule set to produce film classifications would seem more absurd.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 07:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 07:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 08:55 am (UTC)From the press release:
It is the Board’s conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character’s obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.
The board is saying that the explicit nature of the film poses are "a real ... risk of harm".
Where is the evidence for this statement?
Studies in this area have broadly found no evidence of a causal link between watching violent, sexual films and criminal acts. Without citing evidence, the Board's opinion that the film is a real risk is meaningless and plain wrong.
This will be amply demonstrated over the next few weeks when thousands of people will illegally download the film, watch it and then totally fail to rape or murder anyone.
By placing their evidence-less fears over the rights of the individuals to create, distribute and watch acts of self-expression, the board are committing the worst form of censorship.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 09:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 09:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 09:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 10:36 am (UTC)Actually the fox and rabbit populations set to zero is meaningful. If we allow creatures to become extinct, then they aren't going to cycle back to full strength.
As for censorship, I did write a play that someone attempted to censor. It touched upon rape and someone pointed out that there may well be victims in the audience. It certainly gave me pause for thought, until if you attempt to produce something that doesn't offend anyone, then it'll offend people who paid good money to see something!
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 10:42 am (UTC)Interesting. Last time I discussed this with a psychologist, he told me roughly the opposite.
I have an entirely different problem with the BBFC
Date: 2011-06-09 10:56 am (UTC)The BBFC has an implicit censorial role in keeping low-budget productions out of retail/broadcash channels, because the BBFC (a) has a mandate to vet everything that is offered for sale, and (b) charges an arm and a leg for the privilege.
According to an indie director of my acquaintance, BBFC charges keep small productions off the market. Their charges start with a handling fee (£75 for an advert, rising to £300 for longer works), to which is then added a fee of £6-7 per minute of running time. If you're an indie film maker and you've just filmed "Blair Witch Project" on a budget of thruppence ha'penny, you then get held to ransom for on the order of £1000-1500 before you're allowed to stick it on the web with a Paypal tip-jar.
This is, in my view, onerous -- and given the collapse in the price of video production equipment in the past five years it's likely to be suppressing a much larger range of works than one might imagine. Back when film developing costs meant processing 750 frames of film per minute, or video cameras cost thousands of pounds, it was lost in the noise -- today it's like requiring novels (a one-person art form with production expenses potentially measured in single-digit pounds) to pay an up-front fee to determine whether they're legal for publication.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:11 am (UTC)I agree with your general stance on "absolutes bad", but I'd argue that there's no evidence I'm aware of that points to a movie like this causing demonstrable harm, which implies that, essentially, the film's being banned on moral grounds.
Re: I have an entirely different problem with the BBFC
Date: 2011-06-09 11:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:47 am (UTC)So my reaction to the refusal to give a rating is this: what they're saying is that no amount of cutting would get this film even down to R18. If you want to watch it anyway, you have been warned. As such, yes, I do think it has a valid purpose. (Were it to be an actual ban, rather than just a measure that makes it more difficult to see the film, I would have objections.)
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:51 am (UTC)I agree with you about the lack of evidence for causing harm to others, but I hope you would not dismiss the idea that being badly upset by seeing something graphically unpleasant is harmful.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 08:02 pm (UTC)You mention "...the rights of individuals to create..." but as we've established, this right isn't absolute, and my argument is that it can't be in any real - as distinct from fancifully-abstracted - society, hence the wording of ECHR Art. 10(2)
Re: I have an entirely different problem with the BBFC
Date: 2011-06-09 08:08 pm (UTC)Perhaps a better model would be to tax movie revenue, either through distributors or cinema chains. Of course, this only partly address the incipient problem behind the one you describe, which is that as the long tail of low-cost production grows, so does the burden of trying to rate the result.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-09 11:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 01:38 am (UTC)I happened across a New Scientist editorial:
That view is not shared by the vast majority of researchers who study the subject. They see a clear link between media consumption and aggression [ . . . ] Meta-analysis shows that the statistical correlation between exposure to media violence and aggression is not quite as strong as that linking smoking to an increased risk of lung cancer. It is, however, double the strength of the correlation between passive smoking and lung cancer, twice as strong as the link between condom use and reduction in risk of catching HIV, about three times the strength of the idea that calcium increases bone strength, and more than three times as strong as the correlation between time spent doing homework and academic achievement.
This view may be wrong, of course. People not infrequently are. But it's too widespread a view among researchers in the field to be casually discounted as "broadly found no evidence".
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 05:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 07:22 am (UTC)I'll go back to my main point: in my view, saying 'it is always wrong to allow/stop X' is to take an unrealistically simple view of how human society functions, because neither humans nor the societies they form are simple.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 08:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 10:17 am (UTC)I think I can do no more than agree with
no subject
Date: 2011-06-10 11:22 am (UTC)Am I not the best person to judge what or what I should not watch?
Isn't the point of certification (and the additional guidance notes) to allow the viewer to make an informed choice? What is wrong with adding guidance along the lines of "Contains scenes of a graphic nature that are extreme and may cause distress"?
Self-expression is not an absolute but restricting it must be based on credible evidence of risk. We have an Official Secrets act that curtails free expression because, for example, revealing the details of operations in Libya carries clear and credible risks to the troops involved.
The BBFC have failed to provide credible evidence that there is any risk associated to watching this film. Without this evidence, they are failing to certify based solely on a subjective, moralistic point of view.
no subject
Date: 2011-06-12 07:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-12 07:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-12 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-06-13 10:38 am (UTC)