Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood Review

The Twisted Adaptation From Director Hideshi Hino

Oct 23, 2008

Warning: this article focuses on a film which the more sensitive viewer need not see or even know exists. Take note of the title, avoid it, and do not read on.

Throughout the 1980’s Japanese films developed what is now called in the West ‘Torture Horror’ or even ‘Torture Porn/Gore-nography’ – a sub-genre which has been recently highlighted in the West by films like Saw, Hostel, and a host of others, with very few of them carrying any merit as films (the two cited above being prime examples).

But when it comes to taking a concept and exploiting it to the Nth degree, few nations can be counted on like Japan.

The Guinea Pig series of films, six in all with an absurd ‘best-of’ seventh installement, have since gained worldwide notoriety for extended scenes of mutilation, rape and…well, mostly more mutilation and rape. Even Miike Takashi would never resort to this level of depravity (even when he has).

It is 1985’s Flower of Flesh and Blood – the second in the series – however, that gets most of the attention, steeped as it is in all manner of controversy.

Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood - Plot

A commuting woman is walking home. She is followed by a car, then chased down by the driver who renders her unconscious with chloroform.

She wakes up in the killer’s lair, bound to a bed, where he proceeds to drug her and cut her apart. The killer then displays his collection of body parts, while singing a song. End of story. There are no other plot elements.

Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood - Controversy

The film is said to be based on an actual film received by director Hideshi from a ‘fan’, in which a man in the partial garb of a samurai enacts similar deeds before adding the body parts to his private collection (consequently, Hideshi’s film has the antogonist talking directly to the camera, explaining the joys of his work.)

An urban legend says that actor Charlie Sheen saw the movie and, believing it to be a snuff film, reported it to the FBI (though it had already been proven fake in Japan via a trial similar to that which the creators of Cannibal Holocaust were called in for).

The final nail in the coffin came when the first five films of this series were found amongst the extensive collection of a Japanese serial killer, who apparently recreated scenes from the series. Ever since then, it has been illegal in Japan to make any movie under the title of ‘Guinea Pig’.

Just to be clear: at no point has this reviewer ever agreed with the censorship brigades that, in a ridiculous effort to feel as though they’re making the world a better place, frequently cite the likes of heavy-metal music and violent films as catalysts and inspirations to acts of real-life violence.

No one watches a film and just ‘decides’ to go out and commit murder, or, if they do, then it might be reasonable to suggest that they were demented prior to having seen the film (this is apparently too radical a line of thinking for some authorities, who would rather tackle the symptoms as opposed to the causes).

It’s always easier to blame minor cultural influences instead of deeper factors in psychological and/or genetic predispositions and social hardships. It’s only natural then to turn to the usual suspects according with the outlook of an increasingly micro-managed nanny-state that developed countries are becoming, which bear a far greater responsibility as the root cause of violent crime than any director, writer, or musician ever has, or will.

The point will be conceded that, in an ideal world, films of this ilk shouldn’t be made, but then we all know the world – or rather, humanity – is far from ideal and there’s a counter-argument to suggest that people have to face up to reality, parts of which are every bit as misguided as this film. Much more so in fact.

Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood - Summary

For a film whose running time is just 42 minutes, impressionable viewers will dread watching more than just half of that – if they haven’t already switched off.

Despite the film’s infamy for being realistic to the point of believable, there are plenty of telltale signs that confirm it as nothing more than a staged production. The first clue is the strange fact that it’s rather well directed, framed, and clearly shot on professional-standard celluloid. A second clue is in the obviously fake chicken that is decapitated (and it’s hard to imagine that someone would spare a chicken before proceeding to mutilate a human victim).

Still another is the over-the-top sound effects, all meant to hammer home the violence on display. And finally, there’s the lack of any nudity on-screen. Apparently, it’s fine to show the closely observed gore and the blood and viscera that come with it, but no nudity! Seriously, the priorities of some censorship authorities are just as staggeringly twisted as this sort of film.

The fact that Flower of Flesh is so extreme may qualify it as just an experiment in gross-out physical effects rather than an intentional test of the viewers’ sadistic threshholds. It, and other films like it made across the world, are also a sure-fire way of being noticed.

With that said, the physical effects are quite incredible, although delving into the specifics would be distasteful, to say the least. It’s hard to admit there’s a little merit to this film, but there is – a little.

And with that said and done, this article is not recommending watching this film, which should certainly be avoided like the plague by a sensitive audience. To actively seek out this kind of outrageous exploitation one would have to be a real sick puppy – or, of course, a film reviewer. Honestly.

The copyright of the article Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood Review in Slasher Films is owned by Michael Pantazi. Permission to republish Guinea Pig: Flower of Flesh and Blood Review in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.