‘The Bunny Game’ Invades the UK
by Marc Patterson
I don’t know what’s wrong with US based distro companies that they can’t make a move to take a chance on something slightly different, but maybe it’s up to the UK to take the bull by the horns and lead the way. It’s with a bit of surprise that we announce Trinity X, the UK based film company that distributed Simon Rumley’s Red, White & Blue through the UK, has purchased rights to The Bunny Game, a film we’ve been long championing around these parts. It’s a surprise because we thought a US based distributor might pick Adam Rehmeier’s film first. C’est la vie.
For those of you who have not seen our coverage to date – please do yourself a favor and catch up. Links will be provided below. The Bunny Game is one intense and disturbing film. It features a fearless performance from Rodleen Getsic, who portrays a junkie Los Angeles prostitute who is abducted by a crazed trucker, dragged out to the desert and tortured for three days. Here’s the catch though – Everything you see on screen is real. There are no “stunts”. No fake prosthetics. Rodleen underwent tremendous personal prep to take on this role, transforming her body, fasting for forty+ days prior to shooting. She takes a real brand, and some very real beatings. None of these people are actors. The Bunny Game is minimalist, but extremely daring, cathartic, and a spiritual cleansing by fire. Sadly mis-labeled by some as misogynistic and dressed up BDSM play The Bunny Game is something far more. No matter what your take is though, it’s a film sure to have audiences talking. And when the credits roll, isn’t that the point? Otherwise you’ve failed as a filmmaker.
Mark Sandell, co-director of Trinity Films, said today: “Although The Bunny Game is acquired viewing and deals with disturbing issues, it fits the Trinity X brand perfectly in that it is distinctive and independent film-making at its best, with strong performances and a highly original filmic eye”.
At the moment the BBFC hasn’t classified/certified the film – but it should go without saying that this will get a Cert 18. Not sure what cuts might be made to the film, if any. It does open on a very graphic and painful scene of fellatio, which makes this a prime target for British censors.
At any rate – The Bunny Game will get an early 2012 release date. See the trailer below. Additionally be sure to check out my lengthy interview with Adam and Rodleen, as well as Annie Riordan’s review of the film.
[THE BUNNY GAME] [TRAILER] [2011] from Adam Rehmeier on Vimeo.
11 comments
Based on the synopsis, the fact that the torture content is not faked, and given the BBFC’s recent decisions (yes, I’m thinking Human Centipede 2) I have to wonder whether they’ll pass this at all.
The BBFC has been quite a force of nature lately, haven’t they? I’m almost positive they’ll want to cut the opening scene. As to the film itself, there’s not a lot of blood. Actually – there is no visible blood anywhere, but that’s not what makes this shocking. Obviously – we’ll be waiting to see what they decree for the bunny.
I can’t even begin to describe how frustrating it is that someone who clearly doesn’t share my tastes gets to decide the ease in which I’m able to find this movie and watch it. The system needs work.
In all honesty, I don’t think the BBFC will be as harsh on this as they have HC2 et al. Given the sorts of stuff they’ll pass in ‘art’ cinema, like Twentynine Palms, I think the opening scene will be the least contentious part of it. The fact that Godleen Getsic is a performance artist and has obviously consented to go through with the film’s torture – the mostly not very graphic, albeit very disturbing, torture – will, I think, mean the film’s looked at slightly differently to a film like HC2. I can imagine it might be cut, but personally I’d find it very surprising if this caused the same sort of controversy as HC2.
Calm down guys, nothing has happened yet!
I doubt the BBFC will cut this actually – possibly the blowjob, depending on the context – their concern isn’t whether things are real or not (except for animal cruelty) but how they’re presented. They’ve passed things like Jackass and Dirty Sanchez that feature people voluntarily putting themselves through horrible ordeals, so I don’t see why this should be any different. The only thing that would make them cut it is the same thing that would make them cut anything else – that is, if the film appears to glamourize or endorse sexual violence. There’s no reason that the fact that the stunts are real would make them treat it any differently.
@Ewan – when talking about cuts we’re definitely referring specifically to the opening blowjob shot. That wouldn’t even pass rated “R” in the US. It’s automatically put it as NC-17. The BBFC seems even more conservative than the American MPAA.
I’m not sure I’d agree that the BBFC are more conservative necessarily. I’d say they’re generally a lot less hung up over sexual content; there was a lot of hoo-hah about the MPAA rating Blue Valentine NC-17, but the BBFC passed that as a 15 with no cuts. Nor has that been the only time a US NC-17 (heh, sounds like a Starfleet vessel) got a UK 15: Black Book and But I’m A Cheerleader come to mind, both of which were absurd rating decisions on the part of the MPAA I might add.
Unsimulated scenes of fellatio and sex have been passed in 18 rated films; Intimacy, Nine Songs, The Brown Bunny, Shortbus and so on. I guess the key is the context; these were all scenes involving consenting adults. Having not seen The Bunny Game I obviously can’t make an assessment, but given that you describe the scene as ‘painful’ I could see the BBFC having a problem. That said, even the four minutes plus of cuts made to A Serbian Film left in shots of erections and ejaculation, including the infamous skull fuck. And Ewan makes a good point regarding Jackass and Dirty Sanchez. So for now all we can do is sit, wait, and continue to speculate.
The other thing is that in the US there remains the option to release a film unrated; must confess I’ve never quite understood how that works. In the UK, so far as I’m aware it’s flat-out illegal to distribute a film without a BBFC certificate.
Here’s a truncated explanation on how we release films in the US unrated – No filmmaker MUST put their film in front of the MPAA to be rated. It is not required. You can distribute any film without submitting it for a rating. However, that said – you won’t get a wide theatrical release without a rating, so any studio film will be submitted for rating purposes. If you’re a production company whose business model is to release films direct to video – let’s say like Raw Feed, who did Alien Raiders and the Rest Stop films – then you don’t need to bother. However, keeping to the case of Raw Feed – they still submitted their films for rating. Having that rating on the box often helps classify and even sell the film on a store shelf. For parents it helps them decide what’s “kid appropriate”. For horror fans it gives us an indication that with an “R rating” we’re getting something “good” and not something that appears harsh, but only delivers minimal gore, etc. To that same point – there are the “R” rated versions and the “Unrated”, unrated meaning “this is more hardcore than fuck” and contains levels of gore and violence that the MPAA would have wanted to see cut in order to attain that R rating. Now that’s a pure selling tactic.
Goddamn I love you, Marc! Thank you for your continued support!
Yeh I have to echo Ben here, I would very much disagree that the BBFC are more conservative than the MPAA, I’d say it’s clearly the other way around. It’s worth noting, by the way, as well that our ’18’ rating, while it means kind of the same thing as NC-17 (no-one under 18 admitted, period), it carries nothing like the stigma of box-office death, it’s a perfectly acceptable rating over here. On the whole I think the BBFC’s processes are largely misunderstood, though not really that hard to get to grips with if you read their guidelines and some of their press releases.
Anyway, as Ben points out, there are several films with real sex scenes in them where it forms part of the plot or theme (and isn’t intended solely for sexual stimulation, i.e. porn). Other examples include Dogtooth, and Antichrist, which features extreme close-up penetration and the sight of someone ejaculating blood.
Ultimately I’m just saying that nothing has happened yet, so people shouldn’t jump down the BBFC’s throats over something they haven’t done and might not even do.
Does it even really matter which is more conservative? They both tend to get in the way when it comes to this particular genre. It still makes it a pain in the ass for fans such as myself to watch what I’d like. The difference between R, NC-17 and unrated is negligible. It’s all seen as ‘sick’ to the conservative. An unrated horror movie released in the theatre would make more money than any rated version because how many people DON’T go see it because they know the unrated version will be out on DVD in a couple months anyway. Hatchet II didn’t work because there was no marketing behind it (I guess, for whatever reason, it’s difficult to market an unrated film). Nobody knew it was there. But taking gore out just to get an R rating defeats the purpose of the movie existing at all. What horror fan would prefer an R rated movie to a version that couldn’t get past the MPAA? Yeah, nothing has happened yet, but I say again: The system needs work.