Quote:
Originally Posted by Susan Foreman  The BBFC have passed "The Stranglers of Bombay" uncut with a '15' certificate
Presumably this is the first time that the film have been released uncensored. It was cut on it's original cinema release in 1959, and then cut further for it's video release in 1996
All cuts have now been waived, including the 7 seconds removed from the video release for animal cruelty - a scene of a mongoose fighting a snake
Once again, a mockery is made of the animal violence law! |
Apologies for the belated reply (I've only just seen this post), but this last bit really isn't true. The 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act is very clear about what is and isn't allowed, and it contains two explicit get-out clauses - if the animal cruelty was provably simulated, and if it would have happened regardless of the camera's presence (what I call the David Attenborough defence).
Which is why Hammer made sure that they made the film in such a way as to qualify for one of those exemptions - in this case by using inserts from existing Indian documentary footage rather than staging the fight for the cameras themselves. It's very obvious, especially in the high-definition version, that the close-ups of the snake and the mongoose fighting were shot separately: those shots drop at least a generation and have baked-in debris and exposure fluctuations that aren't visible elsewhere in the scene.
The film was duly passed in 1959 for theatrical release including that footage, and again for Blu-ray release in 2018 - the only real mystery being why other video releases in the interim were cut. My hypothesis is that cuts were overzealously requested by the BBFC and not contested by the distributors - whereas Powerhouse provided enough information and evidence (including a statement from a member of the original production team) to satisfy the BBFC that the film not only did not infringe the Animals Act but had been designed from the outset not to do so.