Skip to main content

Preston Garrett Is The Human Centipede

By Leroy James King · May 4, 2010

So I read TSL’s review of The Human Centipede earlier today, written by our Editorial Director Preston Garrett. Let me just say this, Preston – Kinsey Institute or not – you actually thinkthis movie is the result of over-sexing our nation? Sex. That’s the key here. Yeah, I get that there’s a slew of messed up genres of porn and risque advertising and all that crap, but you reallythink that The Human Centipedeis a direct cause of this?

I mean to me, that’s like saying Deepthroat was made because there was actually a medical case of someone having a clitoris in their throat.

Furthermore, to equate that kids are the reason for such a film suggests that The Human Centipede is being marketed to children. Am I right? I think I’m sort ofright, which is the difference between Preston and I. Instead of cleverly prefacing hypotheses with the all-too-self-absorbed “maybe,” I’m actually leaving some room for argument here. To make absolute statements like he’s done in his article is absurd and more than just a little narcissistic.

Now let me say this – I actually had the “pleasure” of watching The Human Centipede with Preston over the weekend. Afterward we had a pretty heated discussion as to whether or not there’s actually an audience for a film like this outside Fangoria junkies, and weird S&M cults. My argument was that there definitely is a nichedmarket for a film like this, but not so much with standard theatrical distribution. I think it can find a huge audience online, and even with Video On Demand. These kind of DIY distribution tactics workfor a concept like this. But not for a wide release (which I don’t expect it will get, especially without a rating from the MPAA).

Preston then brought up his argument, which is what he vomited all over the TSL. What Preston failed to indicate is that definitions of SEXare different across the board. Don’t worry, I’m not gonna go into raw detail here (unlike a certain someone), but not everyonelumps the weird shit in Human Centipede as something characteristically sexual. I’d venture to guess that most people would simply put this into the category of disgusting, morbid, or just plain gratuitous. That’s not to say that Preston doesn’t consider the movie to be any and all of these things (I know he does because he dry-heaved like 15 times during the movie), but I just think it’s fucked up to assume that people will make automatically make a sexual connection with any of this stuff.

So, Preston, I think you ARE the Human Centipede. You’re making connections that aren’t really supposed to be made, and forcing them to toddle around you. I admire your argument, but I propose that Tom Six’s movie is more the result of the presupposition you brought up in the beginning of your review: dudes watching a gore fest and then watching a fucked up porno together. Perhaps porn inspired the idea, but I don’t think the execution of the concept is infused with it. Nor do I think that Six’s intentions were to make people think of sex, or gear this film towards people for sexual reasons.

A couple haikus:

Sad for you Preston
Did you get a snuff boner?
You fucking hipster

Your face is a butt
But your butt is on your face
Keep on talking, dude

When we watched the film
You fake puked and farted twice
You will pay for this