Arrow Video - Inferno - The Archive

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

I don't know why, I just assumed that Inferno had been released in the UK on DVD. If that was cut from the theatrical release, it may have had something to do with the cruelty to animals legislation and the BBFC will never let those scenes in.

[vincenzo]

Watching it again recently the shot of the cat being hit against the chair looks like a dummy to me, though the animal itself is definitely treated quite roughly during the scene.

The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 is still adhered to (required by law), though it will depend on how the BBFC themselves view the footage today. As the scenes were staged for the film, if they receive evidence/assurance that the animals weren't cruelly treated then they'll pass it.

[Angel]

Yes it's difficult to predict what the BBFC's decision will be. Of course it's possible that one of the cuts may be waived and the other retained. My guess is that both cuts will be retained having recently re-watched the scenes. On the previous 2 ocassions when they cut the film there was never any assurances about the animals well being, so it's difficult to see it happening now, though it's not impossible of course.

Yeah the cat could have been a dummy but in the brief moment that that shot took place it is difficult to say for sure.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

There are ways round the act, as you say, as a filmmaker or distributor can tell the BBFC that either it wasn't a real animal or the animal wasn't mistreated and that guarantees that the footage will be in.

One film that comes to mind is Bad Boy Bubby in which they have a cat wrapped up in clingfilm and another one that is dead and carried around. In that case, the cat enjoyed being wrapped up in clingfilm and there were animal welfare officers on the set who could testify that this was the case. When the dead cats were used, they were provided by a local shelter as they were ferile animals that had been put down and this didn't contravene any legislation.

I hope that there was no animal cruelty, and doubt there was as Argento is an animal lover and (I think) a vegetarian, so it seems unlikely that he would include animal cruelty in his films. If this is the case then there's no reason the BBFC wouldn't pass the film uncut.

[Angel]

The BBFC say there must be convincing assurances for them to consider waiving the cuts. Simply saying the animal wasn't real may not be good enough.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

I don't know that has to be incontrovertible evidence as I remember Mark Kermode writing in his fantastic book It's Only a Movie that one film, I can't remember off the top of my head which one, had a scene with a dying bird. The BBFC wanted to cut that seen out but the director said that it wasn't a real bird. The BBFC didn't buy this and said that it was obviously real as you can see its wings flapping. At this, the director countered that the bird was dead and that the wings were being moved by fishing wire.

As there was no evidence to disprove the director's statement, the scene was left in.

This is how I understood the chain of events so I think it is up to the BBFC to prove that the scene involved animal cruelty if someone, acting on behalf of the film, claims otherwise. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

[Angel]

Yes that was Life is a Miracle, originally cut by about 2 seconds until the director gave assurances to the BBFC that the scene wasn't genuine. The director was absolutely fuming about the BBFC's decision to cut the film, in fact he was even going to withdraw the film, and all over 2 seconds of footage. Sounds to me that he was probably telling the truth but of course I wouldn't know for sure. All I can say is the more convincing the "cruelty" is the harder the evidence there must be for the BBFC to consider passing it. The BBFC themselves don't have to prove anything, if they did there would be no animal cruelty cuts.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Yes - that was the film. Of course, the argument that the bird was dead and that its wings were being manipulated by fishing wires was utter bunkum, but the BBFC couldn't proved that that was what happened on the film set so the scenes stayed - all 2 seconds of it!

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

Even though New York Ripper was cut it still became Shameless's biggest seller. It still is for all I know.

The previously cut footage in Inferno is the kind of thing the BBFC would still cut today. It can only be seen as to whether they will.

That's true, vince. And Inferno could still be Arrow's best selling title ( although their COTLD may have a say in that ! )

The New York Ripper is apparently Shameless' best seller to date - however it was also their first release, with all the publicity that goes with that. How many extra would they have sold if it was completely uncut? Same goes for Inferno.

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Angel

My guess is that both cuts will be retained having recently re-watched the scenes.

I don't think it will pass intact either. Same goes for Profondo Rosso if resubmitted. I watched both films recently too and just can't see either getting through intact.

It would be a delight to be proved wrong.