Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthrophagous  One final thing, and then I promise I'll end the rant - the censoring of animal cruelty is pointless. Yeah, hear me out. I can understand if the viewer doesn't want to see such a scene, and that's entirely down to viewer discretion (where you would think anyone who doesn't want to see it simply wouldn't watch the film) but to use Cannibal Holocaust as an example: several actual animal kills in the film were released intact as they were deemed "humane" whereas others were removed. This only further undermines the BBFC's point in the sense that the end result is the same: the animal still dies, and will remain dead whether the scene is in the movie or not. Therefore the fact that some animal deaths see release and some don't is just retarded. Surely the only reason the inhumane deaths are cut out is to avoid inspiring people to perform these acts (that's a chestnut the BBFC love to dig out when defending their censorship), so are they preaching that it's perfectly fine to kill animals for fun as long as you make it quick? (probably not but I can think of no other reason for cutting some scenes and not others  ) |
The BBFC are legally bound to follow the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act which prevents them from allowing a film to be released which was "organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury".
It's nothing to do with inspiring people, but a legal requirement.
I personally don't agree with the 'humane' or 'quick kill' argument as most of those would involve "the cruel infliction of pain or terror" on the unfortunate animal, but it does explain why some deaths are permitted and others are not.