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. |
In the documentary The Good Old Naughty Days there is apparently an explicit scene with a dog that was passed as an R18 but never released on home video. I did hear stories that to see it you had to become a member of a club for one night only. According to melonfarmers this would be illegal to import under the Dangerous Pictures Act. I'm just wondering why such a scene would be considered acceptable at all and be passed uncut by the bbfc at any rating? Or was the Dangerous Pictures Act amended after the film was passed. Or is this an acceptable for cinema but unacceptable for home viewing case?