Arrow Video - Inferno - The Archive

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

They are fully aware of it and conferred with the Home Office about it years ago. Their full response can be read on WWDVD.

Yes also Vince, if the BBFC were to reverse their decision here it would mean that all the cuts made under the animals act for DVD that they have made in the past would have to be waived. Because there can't be one rule for one film and different rules for everyone else. Either the scene here was in conflict with the animals act or it wasn't. Other distributors who have had their films cut will be eagerly waiting to see what the BBFC's decision here will be and if the cut is waived you can be sure what will happen next.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

This could be a watershed ruling, leading to mass re-submissions asking the BBFC to reconsider small cuts, not all to do with the Animals Act, and the future of home cinema may never be the same. Here's hoping (again)!

[broonage]

Originally Posted by Almar@Cult Labs

Just a little update from Arrow - they're pleased to say that the BBFC are going to take another look at their decision on Inferno.

We can't assume anything will change but very well done and many thanks to everyone on here for their reasoned and well-written letters and good on the BBFC for having another look.

At least we can't say that we didn't all try eh?

Brilliant!! My idea of emailing them paid off!
Let's not stop there, if you haven't already done so:
contact_the_bbfc@bbfc.co.uk

[Inspector Tanzi]

Originally Posted by Angel

Because there can't be one rule for one film and different rules for everyone else.

I beg to differ , it is most definately one rule for one and one for another. If Spielberg had made this or some other "respected director" I should imagine it would have been passed.

[elizabeththefirst]

Originally Posted by Inspector Tanzi

If Spielberg had made this or some other "respected director" I should imagine it would have been passed.

If Spielberg had made the movie it would have had a sickeningly sweet ending.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Inspector Tanzi

I beg to differ , it is most definately one rule for one and one for another. If Spielberg had made this or some other "respected director" I should imagine it would have been passed.

The animals act does not allow the BBFC to pass cruelty based on whether the director has achieved respect or acclaim.

[Philleh]

What about Apocalypse Now and Old Boy?

Hell, even E4's The Inbetweeners has aninal cruelty - the slow death of a fish in the first episode of season 2, yet they cut the fish abuse out of Ki-duk Kim's The Isle.

They need to sort themselves out, maybe this will see that they remain consistent.

[elizabeththefirst]

They've been excusing Apocalypse Now for years screaming that they just killed the cow when they where there.

Yea and that's why it's so beautifully shot, captured on multiple cameras...

[Inspector Tanzi]

Originally Posted by elizabeththefirst

They've been excusing Apocalypse Now for years screaming that they just killed the cow when they where there.

Yea and that's why it's so beautifully shot, captured on multiple cameras...

Exactly, like I said before, if Argento made Apocalypse Now shot for shot the same way instead of Coppola would it have remained uncut.... I don't think so.

[dallywhitty]

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act of 1937 actually applies only to works seen in cinema. Therefore, there's no reason why the DVD and Blu-ray release should suffer. In this regard, the BBFC have total freedom; they're hands aren't tied, and they did not have to censor the cat-and-mouse scene. It's brilliant that they're reviewing their decision, though. Here's hoping they'll reinstate the five seconds and we'll have an uncut release.