Making Sense of The Human Centipede (2010)

In many ways, asking what this horror movie is about is the wrong question.

The sentence above would cover it adequately, without touching upon why the film is quickly achieving cult status.

Sensible people would leave it there.

Dieter Laser plays Dr Josef Heiter with compelling menace. He's not quite at the standard of Hannibal Lecter, but runs at a decent enough second place. His chilling aspect is what makes him so believable in the role. His absolute certainty that what he is doing is genius and quite right renders him completely without mercy.

He doesn't like people. It shows. Nor has he any compassion at all. Neither tears nor pleas are going to divert him from his intentions, because he merely believes that the victim doesn't quite appreciate his greatness.

That said, Laser does have an occasional tendency to over-act. That's fine in the role. Dr Heiter allows for some manic moments.

His expertise is surgical. While director Tom Six has cited Dr Josef Mengele as an inspiration (hence the shared first name), the mode of experimentation differs. Dr Heiter is a retired master surgeon in the art of separating Siamese twins.

Now he wants to do that in reverse and that is the hook here.  It's not the storyline itself, but the way in which his kidnapped victims become co-joined, which has caught the imagination of so many viewers.

The shallow level horror is mostly derived by triggering a 'that's gross!' reaction.  A natural aversion to excrement means that many will watch this movie in disgust. 

No feces are seen, but we all know what's happening.

The mechanics are spelled out in a speech delivered by Dr Heiter. The implication is there in the acting, especially in a scene where the action surrounds a defecation.  Our imaginations provide the rest.

That's unpleasant, but worst of all is the notion of the surgery itself.  Not to mention the hopelessness of the positions in which the co-joined people are forced to subsist.

It was the whole psychology of it which rendered me wide-eyed and wondering. It's this factor that has kept the film in my mind ever since. I keep trying to imagine what it would be like for the individuals involved; and how the human mind could survive in such circumstances.

The Human Centipede does encourage such flights of thought. Much of the gore and physical horror takes place away from the camera's eye. The surgery focuses on the doctor. The wounds and joins are hidden behind bandages. Even a beating with a riding crop takes place behind a wall, so only the sounds are heard.

But it's well known that what we can picture in our minds is always much worse than anything that could be shown on the big screen.

The Siamese Triplets is a great horror construct and it's the thing that all of the parodies focus upon. Unfortunately, it's the only truly original thing about this movie.

It's undoubtedly the case that Tom Six came up with a really shocking, fearsome image in the actual human centipede. 

But that's like finding a nugget of gold in an otherwise barren landscape.

There is nothing else original about this movie. It's a cliche-ridden, terribly scripted narrative. The recycled horror genre tropes are so blindingly obvious, that many commentators thought it was a dark comedy.

Two girls break down in a car, go wandering off and end up seeking help in the first isolated house that they see. It's been done since the first person sought revenge in Count Dracula's castle. It's old, tired and frankly boring.

This path is so well worn, that it's hardly worth rolling our eyes that horror movie women seem universally devoid of common sense.  Lindsay and Jenny, in The Human Centipede, are so banal and stupid that it's difficult to empathize with them.

I spent the first half of the film wryly pointing out, 'Oh look, there's a telephone that you've totally failed to pick up to summon help' (three times), or 'You know, those stiletto heels that you were complaining about in the forest would make wonderful weapons right around now'. 

They annoyed me. Moreover the director and writer annoyed me, as it was obvious that the viewers were being fed any old crap. The point wasn't to tell a story, but to deliver us in the swiftest, laziest way possible to the grand unveiling.

Then, once Dr Heiter had actually done the unspeakable, there was nowhere else for the movie to go. No thought had been put into what could happen next, so it slid once more into predictable, worn-out cliche.

There were plot-holes that made a nonsense of the whole story. For example, a desperate struggle up a set of stairs was ruined by a simple contemplation of how the group usually ascended them. They patently did, as most of the middle part of the film showed them upstairs.

I could go on and on here. I won't. But it is easy to see how the sloppiness of the writing resulted in some unintentional comedic moments. Just because the inconsistencies, stupidity of the characters or blatant lack of common sense was too obvious to maintain the suspense.

Only the very last scene gave any further pause for thought, but only then because he'd returned again to the powerfully disturbing psychological element.

It's hard to think of any film that can be satisfactorily compared to The Human Centipede.

Some have lumped it in with the 'torture porn' of Saw and Hostel.  That's a fair comment, but that will disappoint those who watch it expecting the full gore and special effects.

Most of what you see is implied. Even the psychological terror can only be perceived in our own heads, prompted by tearful expressions on the screen.

I've read rants about only sick individuals coming up with this concept; and only warped viewers watching it. There are the usual fears of a real life copy-cat attempting the surgery. Also the fact that Tom Six declared that Mengele was an inspiration for Heiter has given rise to accusations that this movie is disrespectful to Holocaust victims.

The Human Centipede doesn't make pleasant viewing, but it's difficult to align this with reality.  As someone who wrote her dissertation on the Holocaust (and organized the Memorial Day, with its speakers including one of Mengele's actual victims), I saw no hint of that in there. Mengele and Heiter were both immoral and unethical doctors, not coincidentally sharing the same first name, and that's where the similarity ends.

Even the tag-line claim that the surgery is '100% medically accurate' is dubious. No doubt the grafting could be done, but it would certainly be followed by death through shock and dehydration. Or we can take our pick from choking/asphyxiation, malnutrition and so on. 

Could the human centipede survive for years? No, it couldn't.  A doctor has confirmed this (video), pointing out the likelihood that even the tissues would be rejected before the individuals died.

I don't accept that films should not be made because they are too 'gross'.  I find it more disturbing that the movie has been banned in some countries, than anything depicted in the fictional scenes.

Censorship always gives me pause; and I've encountered some commentators poised to turn this movie into a cause célèbre.

Pushing the boundaries of what is shocking keeps not only the horror genre alive, but comedy too. This is why the two are often interchangeable.  Some are convinced that The Human Centipede was meant to be a comedy horror, but I think that's just in the bad writing.

Then there are those who reject the film outright, because it's a great idea surrounded by a truly dismal narrative. And those who call it genius for the same.

The point is that in an age when conformity of opinion appears so popular, there is no collective reaction to the movie. Is it a good film or a bad film?  It's hard to say. But it's causing a lot of debate and maybe therein lies the clue.

If only Tom Six had employed a great screen-writer to run with his idea, it might have been perfection within the horror genre.

The Human Centipede (First Sequence) has been the movie under discussion here, but it is only the lead piece in a story stretching over three parts.

This is the film with all the information. It introduces a new concept to theater goers, but leaves out the blood and gore.  Its sequel has that in abundance, but depicts a mute protagonist. Until 2013, we will not know what's in store for the rear.

There is an obvious allegory between the nature of the films and the three sections of the first human centipede. Maybe no firm opinions could be formed until we've put them all together.

But would you wish to sit through two more after seeing this one?

I wouldn't know where to begin on a Feminist critique of this movie.  Bizarrely though, it does pass the Bechdel Test.  Which just proves how low the bar has been set on that one!

That test is designed to evaluate the representation of women in any movie.  The first criteria is met as there are two named women.  Lindsay and Jenny are pretty much the stars of the show.

They also have a conversation, which ticks the second box.  Then comes the moment where most films fail - is that dialogue about something other than a man?

Yes!  They discuss a party; and breaking down in a car; and the weather.  There's also non-verbal communication, when they're no longer in a position to vocalize, about Jenny's health.  There's sympathy and reassurance in the same.

So yes, unbelievably, The Human Centipede passes the Bechdel Test with flying colors.