Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs Pretty much. The other animals were all eaten afterwards by the cast, crew and locals whereas Deodato himself told the BBFC that the muskrat was just killed for the sake of it. It's also that that killing is prolonged, whereas the other deaths are "quick." |
The BBFC obviously think of
Cannibal Holocaust as some kind of documentary now - because of Deodato's clarifications nearly all the scenes are now
animal slaughter instead of
animal cruelty.
You can't blame the BBFC for that as nobody would think about censoring a documentary about a slaughterhouse; basically, it would be the same: animals get filmed while being killed and are eaten afterwards. So much for butcher's shops and
CH.
Maybe the BBFC are becoming even more liberal. Just think of it: shooting a film nowadays, documentary-style, the topic being maneaters. A member of the real film crew gets his head chopped off and this footage can be found in the final film. The BBFC say: it's alright with us, the director assured as that both head and body got eaten afterwards by the cannibals.
Greetings!
PS: If you ask me, the muskrat ain't no muskrat but a coati. Just to set the record straight. Poor animal anyhow.
PPS: To add something to the basic topic - I was surprised by the BBFC's decision.
CH is one of the few movies I'd really call a
video nasty. Not for particular scenes, but for the movie's general tone and the accumulation of violence towards both animals and humans. Making it available for the general public - well, one should think that such rough and violent societies like ours should be able to handle such movies. But a person skimming the shelves, buying it by accident and watching it as somebody used to "normal" horror flicks - I'm not so sure about that scenario...
I suggest a big red label stating "The Former Video Nasty - Beware! It's Still As Nasty As It Ever Was! Make Sure You Have The Guts!"