Quote:
Originally Posted by longtom  It's not quick by any means, it's not clean and it's certainly not humane. |
I agree it is a very graphic scene. I am of course in no position to speak on behalf of the BBFC or anybody else for that matter, so the following is merely my thoughts on that matter. Just a warning that it does get a little graphic from here on in!
Just re-watching the scene now, maybe it's because the first thing to come off is the turtles head - almost everything is severed on the first cut of the knife - with the exception of the all the skin. Everything after that point, (ie the kicking of the turtle, the movement of the mouth, etc) could be considered motor reflex and therefore, while it looks horrible, might not be classed as cruel to the animal. It's just like when a chicken is beheaded, it still flies around for a while. Such scenes with chickens are, I'm sure, available in many UK films (Faces Of Death the one I can think of off the top of my head). It may also have helped that there is footage of the actual eating the turtle in the film. It, in-a-way, puts into context why the turtle was killed.
I do agree that it is a very drawn out scene and deliberately shot to be as graphic as possible though.
I believe that the fact they ate the turtle afterwards plays a huge impact on that scene being (considered) allowed through uncut.