When does “art” go too far? Part 1

Recently I was talking to a friend of mine who is into movies. He mentioned that there was going to be a second Human centipede. Upon hearing this I was pretty surprised because I thought that the first was a terrible film both in realisation and premiss. Never the less I started to look it up on the internet and what I found shocked me, really shocked me... And I’d like to think that I have a pretty high tolerance for stuff like this.

The director, Tom Six, was quoted to say that “[he] wanted to make the first sequence look like my little pony in comparison” I would argue that just because he’s could make a film infinitely more sickening than the first, he doesn’t need to.  The BBFC refused it classification, and one of their many reasons was the “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" They went on to suggest that “the film could perhaps be a breach of the obscene publications act”. In defence Tom Six said “[its] f ictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art...” I would say that it is not art, it is just obscene, sickening violence that approaches on masochistic pornography. I read through the plot (linked here if you’d like to read it) and I just don’t understand what would drive someone to write let alone MAKE a film like this. Just to give you an idea the film was only allowed into Britain after 3 minutes of cuts where made which included:

“A man masturbating with sandpaper around his penis; 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 victims' mouths; a man with barbed wire wrapped around his penis violently raping a woman; a newborn baby being killed; and graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals' mouth and buttocks.”

Its just needless, you don’t need to show things like this on film, you can allude to some of them and in some cases the scenes are more effective when you don’t show the

 violence. Especially when making a horror film, which this claims to be, I find that for myself its what I don’t see scares me more than what I do see. The scene that I find most disturbing is the scene where the new born child is killed. I don’t need to explain if you have read the scene why its horrible but suffice to say, its traumatising and very graphic.  

Finally I would say that I do not understand what would drive someone to act in a film like this, the actor that rapes a woman with barbed wire, the woman who births a child and then kills it. Surly at some point something would click in your head and you would say “hang on this is a little too far”. 

In my opinion films like this should not be made. But maybe I am missing a point in this film, maybe there is some sort of clever message behind the violence. Either way I don’t want to give it anymore time than I have to find it. I would suggest you give this film a wide birth. It has just been made because it could be made, and I feel that it is an offence to call this art. Its not “art” its just vile.

What is your opinion on this? Will you watch it?

Have you seen it?

I will be back with another film that I feel may have gone too far later.

-Cpt Chiken

Recently I was talking to a friend of mine who is into movies. He mentioned that there was going to be a second Human centipede. Upon hearing this I was pretty surprised because I thought that the first was a terrible film both in realisation and premiss. Never the less I started to look it up on the internet and what I found shocked me, really shocked me... And I’d like to think that I have a pretty high tolerance for stuff like this.

The director, Tom Six, was quoted to say that “[he] wanted to make the first sequence look like my little pony in comparison” I would argue that just because he’s could make a film infinitely more sickening than the first, he doesn’t need to.  The BBFC refused it classification, and one of their many reasons was the “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" They went on to suggest that “the film could perhaps be a breach of the obscene publications act”. In defence Tom Six said “[its] f ictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art...” I would say that it is not art, it is just obscene, sickening violence that approaches on masochistic pornography. I read through the plot (linked here if you’d like to read it) and I just don’t understand what would drive someone to write let alone MAKE a film like this. Just to give you an idea the film was only allowed into Britain after 3 minutes of cuts where made which included:

“A man masturbating with sandpaper around his penis; 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 victims' mouths; a man with barbed wire wrapped around his penis violently raping a woman; a newborn baby being killed; and graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals' mouth and buttocks.”

Its just needless, you don’t need to show things like this on film, you can allude to some of them and in some cases the scenes are more effective when you don’t show the

 violence. Especially when making a horror film, which this claims to be, I find that for myself its what I don’t see scares me more than what I do see. The scene that I find most disturbing is the scene where the new born child is killed. I don’t need to explain if you have read the scene why its horrible but suffice to say, its traumatising and very graphic.  

Finally I would say that I do not understand what would drive someone to act in a film like this, the actor that rapes a woman with barbed wire, the woman who births a child and then kills it. Surly at some point something would click in your head and you would say “hang on this is a little too far”. 

In my opinion films like this should not be made. But maybe I am missing a point in this film, maybe there is some sort of clever message behind the violence. Either way I don’t want to give it anymore time than I have to find it. I would suggest you give this film a wide birth. It has just been made because it could be made, and I feel that it is an offence to call this art. Its not “art” its just vile.

What is your opinion on this? Will you watch it?

Have you seen it?

I will be back with another film that I feel may have gone too far later.

-Cpt Chiken

I have pretty much the same opinion, I don't want to watch horror movies where the entire point is brutally killing people. I really don't understand why someone would take pleasure in watching that. Maybe I'm hypocritical, as I am a man that loves some violence when it is justified by the film, but senseless psychotic murder in film is just... well, just that: senseless. Edit: Not to say it shouldn't be made, I am not the judge of that, but I certainly don't like those kinds of films.

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

I can only say one thing. I'm glad that there is something worse than...well another movie i had seen that offended me, not due to it's contents, but it's name.

spoilers: the new-born baby having its head crushed by its own mother with a clutch pedal with the cord still attached was a bit much...

Wait, which one is it?

@CptChiken said:

I would not say that it is not art.

Its not “art” its just vile.

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

I don't believe in media censorship, but rather in personal responsibility. I am actively against seeing this film and firmly believe that a desire to see it shows either a childish fascination with the obscene or a deep sadistic streak.

I hold both Funny Games and A Clockwork Orange among the greatest, most important films ever made. They are gruesome and grotesque, and very difficult to watch. But they do not glory in their violence, but expose it for what it is, and ask critical questions of the viewer. Tom Six's films glorify the brutal and ask nothing in return.

@Toms115: You ask, "What's the big deal?" A better question to ask of your entertainment is: "Of what use is it? Does it teach, explain, question, improve?"

@mlarrabee said:

A better question to ask of your entertainment is: "Of what use is it? Does it teach, explain, question, improve?"

I'd counter that the Human Centipede films are more of a parody than anything. Maybe not referring to them as "art" would be a good place to start here.

I like the idea that the director is taking things so far in left field as to be in outer space, but that doesn't mean I actually want to see the movie.

@xobballox said:

I really don't understand why someone would take pleasure in watching that.

I think deep down, we all possess bloodlust. It's what horror films are founded on, shit, it's what boxing is founded on: that primal desire to see a fellow human being physically harmed. Films like The Human Centipede exist solely to tap into this desire, and personally, I find shit like the UFC far more disturbing.

@xobballox said:

I really don't understand why someone would take pleasure in watching that.

I think deep down, we all possess bloodlust. It's what horror films are founded on, shit, it's what boxing is founded on: that primal desire to see a fellow human being physically harmed. Films like The Human Centipede exist solely to tap into this desire, and personally, I find shit like the UFC far more disturbing.

@EVO said:

@xobballox said:

I really don't understand why someone would take pleasure in watching that.

I think deep down, we all possess bloodlust. It's what horror films are founded on, shit, it's what boxing is founded on: that primal desire to see a fellow human being physically harmed. Films like The Human Centipede exist solely to tap into this desire, and personally, I find shit like the UFC far more disturbing.

It's the part where the violence is exacted on people (who I assume) are innocent for no reason other than some crazy dude is like "I want to" that makes it fucked up and worthless to me and the fact that it is so detailed and graphic for again, no reason. I enjoy UFC, but if they were made to fight instead of choosing to fight to test their skills as a fighter or showcase their skills as a fighter, then that would be utterly fucked.

Some people like such movies, deal with it. I personally think they are boring but some people might find them entertaining. It's just a damn movie.

@imsh_pl said:

@Toms115 said:

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

None of it is also necessary.

Art in itself is not necessary. Not even the least of it.

@xobballox said:

I enjoy UFC, but if they were made to fight instead of choosing to fight to test their skills as a fighter or showcase their skills as a fighter, then that would be utterly fucked.

It's less the fighters that I find disturbing, but more the thousands of screaming fans and millions at home cheering them on. I mean, at least The Human Centipede isn't real. UFC on the other hand: that's real blood, real broken bones, real lives at risk.

I saw some works at the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy a good number years ago, some of the art there went too far because it was offensive as well as shit. One particular work ended up being daubed in red paint, rightly so in my eyes.

@imsh_pl said:

@Toms115 said:

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

None of it is also necessary.

Art in itself is not necessary. Not even the least of it.

if you don't like it or find it offensive or vile, don't watch it. it's really as simple as that. i don't particularly care for these movies, but banning them is a bit much. surely we can let the adults decide what they find offensive?

Not all movies have to be "Art". Movies are a form of entertainment. There is nothing wrong with this movie being made. If you don't want to see it, dont.

A Serbian Film. You are all welcome.

@imsh_pl said:

@psylah said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Toms115 said:

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

None of it is also necessary.

Art in itself is not necessary. Not even the least of it.

But certain components are necessary to form a piece of art/an artform, whereas in the discussed example the over the top gore and violence bring nothing to the table.

There is no agreed-upon guideline as to what is required to constitute a piece of art. If there was, we would not be bothering with this argument. The writer/director of the film clearly felt that the viscera included was what he needed to show to have his vision of the final work come to light, and was satisfied to that extent. "Too much" for you was just enough for him. At the very least HE was entertained and satisfied, and with that end in mind, he was justified in making this film.

@Hairy_Fish said:

A Serbian Film. You are all welcome.

Oh god that movie... was like watching an episode of my little pony. Yes, horrible.

It never wanted to be art. This is pointless. Just because it's a movie it doesn't mean it's art. The objective of this movie is to give a big FUCK YOU to the audience.

@imsh_pl said:

@Toms115 said:

none of it is real. what's the big deal?

None of it is also necessary.

No movie is necessary. That seems like a non-argument.

You later said that over-the-top gore and violence bring nothing to the table but I would point to most of Takashi Miike's most extreme work as examples of how repulsive ideas and images can be formed into great entertainment. It wasn't too long ago that people were willingly watching schlock like Hostel or the Saw movies, or even the original Human Centipede, I don't see why people are suddenly upset over marginally more grotesque or marginally more explicit presentation of ugly concepts.

Art, by it's very nature can never go too far far, or far enough even, unless we as a society first go too far. However, The Human Centipede is a campy gross-out film. It is most assuredly NOT art.

I wouldnt watch it, but here, in America, you cant tell people what to, or not to make films about. in American law we have the miller test to tell if something is obscene, but thats only if it goes to court.

1. whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

When i first read your thread title, I was thinking: "Torture porn is NOT art."
 
My comment is completely appropriate.

Human Centipede isn't art, at all. It doesn't lend a message, it doesn't demand your thoughts, it doesn't expect you anything but to gross out people for no goddamn reason.

Violence is a thing that happens everyday in our broken, corrupted world filled with poverty, overpowered individuals, and disarranged political orders--all causing crime, tragedized lifestyles that lead to criminals, war, and unhealthy lifestyles that dissolve physical beauty and rid the chances of humans to gain loving attention and understanding, thus rape and molestation occur.

Violence is a thing that is, sadly, normal in our planet, and art--and its portrayal of human nature and the planet it inhabits--can show it with great purpose. Shakespear's stories were very violent, not grotesquely in any horrific manner, but it was violent nonetheless.

It's one thing for disgusting acts to happen in the real world, but it is wholly irresponsible to glorify them in film. I remember when horror films were psychological thrillers with suspense and intellectual stimulation, but today everyone seems to take the easy route and figure that gore = horror. It is beyond me how someone can try to defend a film like this.

yo remember the days when scary movies used to be scary

I don't know about all this but there is one thing to be said "fuck this guy and fuck his movies." Christ I need to wash my brain from this disgusting filth

If there's one thing I loath, it's people moralizing over what's really just subjective opinion. So you don't like to watch gruesome movies? That's fine. But I'm an adult and I believe I have the right and mental capacity to make my own judgement on what form of entertainment I would like to consume.

I can't defend or criticize Human Centipede as I haven't seen it, because it looks rather bland. I did, however, enjoy such movies as Sebian Film and Saló among others. I can see artistic value in them because they are generally about so much more than just the gruesome violence. But furthermore, I am of the stance that if a film is well made enough for you to react to the things portrayed, that is well crafted work. There is no denying that. Is a bad horror movies scary? No, because they are generally poorly made films by people who might not have the skills necessary to make the horror truly pop. When the effect of the movie is contrary to it's intent, it failed. If you're watching a comedy that isn't funny, something is wrong and that is offensive as it's a waste of my time.

The more blood, gore and violence the better is what I always say!

Unless it's just bad. Then the less the better.

I can't defend or criticize Human Centipede as I haven't seen it, because it looks rather bland. I did, however, enjoy such movies as Sebian Film and Saló among others. I can see artistic value in them because they are generally about so much more than just the gruesome violence.

It's in black & white, of course it's art :P  
  
The director has the right to make whatever he likes as long as he's not hurting anyone and while I have no interest in watching any of these Human Centipede movies, the only thing that's offensive to me is Tom Six trying to portray this film as meaningful art. If he considers it art, fine let it be called art, shallow ham-fisted art.

I made a thread last week about how Bioshock Infinite was being interpreted by white supremacists as an attack on them. They had a second-half to this game, and there was a bunch of new weird messages and angles from Bioshock that nobody ever thought about, and it was really gettin these people riled up because they had a completely different viewpoint on what the game means, what it was trying to say, why it was being made etc.

The thread got deleted and I was told to not talk about it again. Not locked- deleted. As if nobody ever brought it up.

So there ya go- that's when art goes too far: when you talk about racists.

There is no "too far" in my vocabulary because my opinion shouldn't affect someone else's prerogatives. Just because I find a piece of media obscene, of little value, or otherwise objectionable doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. Ignoring and trying to censor all the "bad stuff" in the world only serves to breed ignorance and I'd much rather live in a world where neo-nazis can make video games about how great Hitler was than a world where people in power decide what we may or may not consume.

Fucked up movie, surprised the director hasn't been murdered yet à la Pier Paolo Pasolini

@TheDudeOfGaming said:

I can only say one thing. I'm glad that there is something worse than...well another movie i had seen that offended me, not due to it's contents, but it's name.

Everything I know about Serbia comes from A Serbian Film.

The very existence of movies like this is genuinely fascinating.

Its sick depraved shit, but the fact that people spent money making it is amazing.