Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Brooke  I suspect either the animal cruelty so blatantly infringed the Animals Act that there wouldn’t have been any point submitting it uncut or they had private conversations with the BBFC prior to official submission.
The latter happens if a label is handling something that they know for certain is going to be problematic (and the rules governing animal cruelty are unusually clear-cut), because if there’s obviously no way certain material is going to get through (for legal rather than BBFC policy reasons) the main question concerns how best to make the cuts while damaging the film as little as possible.
I myself had a very useful pre-submission chat with the BBFC over half a dozen shots of genuine bestiality in a Walerian Borowczyk short. We knew that four shots were open-and-shut illegal, so removed them prior to submission (they were so illegal that even possession was proscribed, meaning that the BBFC would be obliged to call the police if we’d left them in), but they said that they thought the first was probably OK and the last at least sounded ambiguous enough to make it worth submitting. In the event they let both shots through at 18. |
Thank you for the clarification Michael. The law is the law whether we like it or not... I was about to pull the trigger with the Scream release before the announcement anyway. It just means that it back on the list again
Michael, what would be likely to happen if the movie was streamed uncut on a platform under the BBFC's self certification rules? Because it seems to me those rules are simply no rules as opposed to the expensive rules for physical media distributors.