Each Quentin Tarantino film is controversial for a reason or another, generally for the use of racial insults or visceral violence. Regarding this last issue, few Tarantino films are more sadly famous than his 1992 thriller “Reservoir Dogs”, which includes a depraved torture scene that always haunts viewers to date. The scene, like most Tarantino fans will have no trouble remembering, implies that Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) cuts the ear of a police officer, soley and almost fires. It’s a thing to do with someone, without a doubt. Even the legend of horror Wes Craven has found stomach trouble.
On paper, this scene may not seem too horrible, but what really makes it in the stomach is the joyful way in which Mr. Blonde goes to his torture. He has fun here, dancing along Stealers’s “Stuck in the Middle with You” in a way that bypassed the song forever. I am sure that the group appreciated the royalties they obtained by playing in the film, but now their song is forever associated with the dismemberment of the ear and general sadism.
The scene was so grotesque, in fact, that it almost banned the film in the United Kingdom. The British British Board of Film Classification (or BBFC) had a long debate on the scene, wondering if the torture sequence brought the film beyond note 18 that it ended up receiving, which is essentially the British equivalent of an American NC-17. As explained by the BBFC website, “opinions have been expressed that its horrible and sadistic nature would bring out some people from the film. It was also noted that the obvious pleasure of Mr. Blonde from what he does … Glamor Sadism.”
Why the BBFC chose to spare “tank dogs”
Fortunately, the cooler heads prevailed, and the BBFC decided to keep the film in its note 18 without “other intervention”. They made this decision because, unlike many other groups who like to ban provocative books or films, the BBFC seems in fact to have an understanding of the literacy of the media. They noted that Mr. Blonde had been presented in the film as a villain, someone “that a spectator is not invited to identify [with] or for glamor. “They also noted that the scene was crucial for the plot, and that”[played] On the themes of the loyalty and betrayal film. “”
A more dubious line of their defense of the scene considered the way it was filmed:
“The general opinion was that the scene, while generating a sustained, intense and disturbing atmosphere of threat and threat, was remarkably retained in what it showed.
It is true that a lesser director would probably have shown gore for more shock value, but I would say that implicit violence here is much more disturbing. For me, the most bitten part of the scene is always the moment when the camera takes place, because I can imagine so very well what is going on off screen. The camera leaving the police also creates a feeling that we have abandoned it; As long as he is on the screen, there is the illusion that he can perhaps withdraw from it, but when he left the screen, we know it’s over.
Although I do not think that the choice to keep the cup in an out -screen ear was the best reason not to interfere with the release of the film, I am always happy that “tank dogs” managed to avoid censorship thanks in part to this technicality. The film continued to be a huge success in the United Kingdom, with the British public to watch exactly the same version of the film as the Americans loved.
