Cutting animal cruelty doesn't negate history, it simply removes the visual representation of what is now considered an immoral and illegal act. Once a film crosses the line into offering the unsimulated abuse and killing of a living creature, no matter how long ago it was filmed, it becomes an offense against all that's supposed to be decent and humane about civilised society.
Retaining that material with appropriate warnings sounds reasonable at first glance, but what that means in practice is that the animal has not only been abused and killed for the sake of 'entertainment', but that it's final moments will be exhibited for all eternity just so we can feel appropriately guilty about it.
We can still feel ashamed of what these filmmakers have done without parading an animal's death in front of paying audiences. You could get exactly the same effect by removing this material and explaining up-front (on ad-mats, video packaging and the BBFC website) what has been cut and why. This way, historical accuracy is maintained whilst the animal in question is afforded some of the dignity it was denied at the end of its life.
|