[trench]

Still some confusion over the removal of the muskrat scene but not the turtle scene I see. I was going to write my own answer, but sure it's already been answered many times throughout the thread, so I thought it would be funnier to post those comments instead :

Originally Posted by longtom

Cut the muskrat but leave the turtle

Originally Posted by masdawg

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.

Originally Posted by bigandya

I'll believe it when I see it. The turtle death is the most protracted, vile scene of animal cruelty in the entire film! No way could it be described as quick, clean or humane.

See Mawsdawg's comments, and this :

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

As for why the turtle would remain, as some have been asking, I think the BBFC has decided it is "humane" as the head is removed first and so its movements after that are motor reflexes. So, while it looks vile, the turtle isn't in any pain. Plus they have taken into account the fact that it was eaten by the cast, crew and locals.

This is as much as I understand about the advice at any rate!

And this :

Originally Posted by buggenhagen

As Sarah just mentioned the head is severed cleanly right at the start of the scene and all you're seeing after that is the motor reflex - it's not nice but the common understanding is that the suffering would be minimal. If you had your head cleanly sliced off in an instant you'd twitch around too but you would be dead instantly. If they had slowly sawn the head off, or cut into the shell without decapitating the turtle then that would have been tortuous for the thing. The muskrat scene is exactly that - a slow, botched and painful death.

And this :

Originally Posted by robertzombie

Firstly, the turtle is killed instantly so I think that explains why it is considered to be "more humane" than the muskrat which obviously suffers a great deal.

Originally Posted by longtom

To cut the muskrat scene but not the turtle scene is plain illogical.

Why?