I take your points, Nos. But much of the controversy isn't around animals being killed on-screen, but that it was considered to be cruel and sadistic. The pervailing attitude has been that the animals were mistreated. However, if you remove that element, all you have left is the killing of the animals, which, I might add, is not a criminal offence in the UK (otherwise farmers and the like would be in court all the time). The issue in the UK is the treatment of the animal prior to its death - in other words, did it suffer? So if the BBFC take that into account and conclude that the killings are swift and humane and no prolonged suffering was endured, they may well pass those scenes. I'm doubtful, but we'll see.
So, I was curious, if the element of cruelty is proved to be absent, will it change people's view of the film?
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
|