Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > The Fleapit > Memory Lane + Censorship Old And New


Like Tree163Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 05-04-2010, 04:46 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
- but cutting some horsefalls in old John Wayne Westerns? Come on. Like I say, these were uncut for years, so why the sudden urgency to censor these works?
No urgency, just compliance with Government legislation which as mentioned is applied to DVD as a matter of policy. Unfortunately the animals act doesn't allow the BBFC to pass cruelty providing it wasn't cut before.
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 05-04-2010, 04:50 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojirosan View Post
Really?

Fair enough, but I find that a hard attitude to understand in someone who likes film.

Oh well.
Yes I agree with the cutting of animal cruelty just as I agree with the cutting of child abuse, necrophilia and snuff.
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 05-04-2010, 04:57 PM
Cult Addict
Senior Moderator Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

My own personal views on censorship aren't exactly in line with the BBFC but I understand what they do and mostly why they do it. The old days of censorship (the Trevelyan/Murphy/Ferman years) interest me a great deal. Mainly because of the sheer madness of it at times. They were clearly working without ideas or policy, and Ferman worked to his own agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
Yes I agree with the cutting of animal cruelty just as I agree with the cutting of child abuse, necrophilia and snuff.
Incidentally I'm in line with most of the above too.
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 05-04-2010, 05:00 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Yes prior to Robin Duvalls arrival the public had to suffer about 70 years of complete insanity with decisions that were totally laughable.
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 05-04-2010, 05:03 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Veteran
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Darlington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
Yes I agree with the cutting of animal cruelty just as I agree with the cutting of child abuse, necrophilia and snuff.
That's an interesting way of looking at it -- we wouldn't even think about tolerating a bit of child abuse in the horror film, would we?
__________________
Film 365
Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 05-04-2010, 05:35 PM
Gojirosan's Avatar
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Liverpool, UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
Yes I agree with the cutting of animal cruelty just as I agree with the cutting of child abuse, necrophilia and snuff.
The issue is not exactly directly comparable to those, in my opinion.

I am sure no-one condones the genuine abuse of animals in film-making, and agree that it should be covered by law irrelevant of whether or not a film is being made. Abuse is abuse if there are cameras or not.

But do you agree that it is right to cut films from yesteryear because they may (or may not it seems) fall foul of an ambiguously worded law?

I think it is less clear when one considers future productions and the differing legal position over animals around the world. But I don't think the BBFC is right to cut such things. A special certificate or warning is fine, I do not think cutting is appropriate.

Last edited by Gojirosan; 05-04-2010 at 06:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 05-04-2010, 07:42 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Veteran
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Darlington
Default

I agree with what you're saying and that's what makes it such a difficult subject. The problem with some of these films is that they didn't follow any laws at all -- I can't imagine that the turtle that was cut up and eaten in the Cannibal Holocaust was done with the full blessing of local lawmakers!

Standards do change, and things that were acceptable now aren't. It is this point that means that the BBFC, bound by the Animals Act, is applying today's standards to films made decades ago. It's a tricky issue as I don't agree with animal cruelty, but neither am I a big fan of censorship.
__________________
Film 365
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 05-04-2010, 08:39 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gojirosan View Post
But do you agree that it is right to cut films from yesteryear because they may (or may not it seems) fall foul of an ambiguously worded law?
Well I don't see what difference it makes when the films were made, cruelty is cruelty, obviously cutting animal cruelty from films made 50 years ago is not going to change what happened ie the animals aren't going to be brought back to life. The point of the legislation was to encourage films makers to use more humane methods when dealing with animals and I think it certainly had an effect on films made over here in the UK at least. Yes it's a law that I certainly agree with.
Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 05-04-2010, 08:43 PM
Angel's Avatar
Cultist on the Rampage
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferatu View Post
It's a tricky issue as I don't agree with animal cruelty, but neither am I a big fan of censorship.
Do you agree with any animal cruelty cuts? Or would you pass any film regardless of the severity of the cruelty.
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 05-04-2010, 09:05 PM
Nosferatu@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Veteran
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Darlington
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel View Post
Do you agree with any animal cruelty cuts? Or would you pass any film regardless of the severity of the cruelty.
It would depend on what the filmmakers did compared to what you can see. It might look like cruelty, but isn't. If a cat is filmed killing a mouse, and that is used in the narrative then I have no problem with it as long as it wasn't set up and the mouse didn't suffer - the 'quick kill' arguement, if you will. Horse tripping is a difficult one as I don't like horse racing (with jumps) and I'm ok with that as long as the animals aren't injured and have to be killed.

Accidents happen, but I wouldn't want a blanket ban as what one person considers cruel another may think is perfectly normal and natural.
__________________
Film 365
Reply With Quote
Reply  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Censorship Discussion - Logic Wins vincenzo Memory Lane + Censorship Old And New 25 05-11-2008 08:19 PM


Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2012 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.