Inferno - The BBFC Verdict (carry the chat about the BBFC on here only!)

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Though this doesn't stop the cockfight happening, does it? Merely brushes it under the carpet.

Cruel or not, I think such things should be included. Censoring them creates a false impression. The chickens still went through it, removing your choice over seeing it doesn't change anything.

Replace "chickens" with "kids" and would you still argue that point?

We all support censorship to some degree.

[Gojirosan]

Replace "chickens" with "car chases"?

You can go on for ever at that game. It's still spurious. The children argument especially. Chldren are protected all around the world. Filming their assault is a crime, everywhere, pretty much. So it wouldn't occur in a legitimate film. The law comes into play long before any censorship board.

Children are not raised in factories for people to eat. If they were it might all look very different. I see no benefit to the "brush under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen" approach to the animal issue. If you don't want to see it, don't buy the film or use your fast-forward button, or pressure for "animal cruelty free" alternative versions if you must.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

Replace "chickens" with "car chases"?

You can go on for ever at that game. It's still spurious.

Only cars aren't sentient beings and can't have cruelty inflicted on them.

Either way, my point stands: by removing scenes of animal cruelty it teaches the filmmaker that such practices will not, at least, be tolerated in this country and that they will not be able to profit from them.

And the chickens are "just there to be eaten" argument may be taken to task by some of the vegan and vegetarian members of the forums!

My main feeling that cutting Inferno feels remarkable folly is because cats eat mice on the hour, every hour and - set up or not - I can't justify seeing people feed their pet snakes live rodents whilst the BBFC removes something similar in a movie.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by Calum

Only cars aren't sentient beings and can't have cruelty inflicted on them.

No, but their reckless use causes far more damage to animals and children than any kind of hideous fighting sport.

Oh, and I have long been involved in animal welfare and have been a vegetarian for over 30 years. I find the cutting of old films so people can pretend such things don't happen as offensive as the act itself. If it happened, nothing can be done about it now. Seeing it shows up how hideous such things are, hiding it through censorship just paints a false pretty picture.

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

No, but their reckless use causes far more damage to animals and children than any kind of hideous fighting sport.

But not in a fictional film!

The point is that inflicting brutality - or death - on a sentient being (animal or human) should be of obvious concern. Whilst I disagree with the cut to Inferno, I am glad the BBFC removes sequences of suffering inflicted upon helpless animals (note, however, they do not remove scenes filmed for a documentary so, if you wanted to do a piece on chickens in a battery farm, I imagine you'd be okay).

(I'm not a vegetarian actually: Ironically, given this discussion, I still eat chicken. And I don't subscribe to animal rights - animal welfare, yes. So I'm not arguing my own intrinsic thoughts here, I'm merely pointing out why I think some degree of "protection" is needed).

This is an interesting dicussion, by the way, but I guess maybe we should get back to Inferno?

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by Calum

But not in a fictional film!

The point is that inflicting brutality - or death - on a sentient being (animal or human) should be of obvious concern.

But surely, what's done is done, so the only concern can be one of imitation - hence my car chase point. I fail to see any benefit from removing such scenes - it's merely to cosset people (who shouldn't be cossetted) - it doesn't stop the cruelty from happening, but creates a false impression of a cruelty-free film industry.

More people would be concerned about animal welfare in cinema if they saw what has gone on in the past. If you hide it, who's to know what monstrosities can go on?

[Calum]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

But surely, what's done is done, so the only concern can be one of imitation - hence my car chase point. I fail to see any benefit from removing such scenes - it's merely to cosset people (who shouldn't be cossetted) - it doesn't stop the cruelty from happening, but creates a false impression of a cruelty-free film industry.

More people would be concerned about animal welfare in cinema if they saw what has gone on in the past. If you hide it, who's to know what monstrosities can go on?

It's a solid point you've made but I guess I still err on the side of caution when it comes to letting some sequences of animal abuse through. My only wish is that the BBFC were consistent - as others have wisely mentioned in this thread, they've let through sequences a lot more contentious than the cat-mouse bit in the past!

[Libretio]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

But surely, what's done is done, so the only concern can be one of imitation - hence my car chase point. I fail to see any benefit from removing such scenes - it's merely to cosset people (who shouldn't be cossetted) - it doesn't stop the cruelty from happening, but creates a false impression of a cruelty-free film industry.

More people would be concerned about animal welfare in cinema if they saw what has gone on in the past. If you hide it, who's to know what monstrosities can go on?

Calum makes the valid point that censorship of such material - no matter how old - sends a message to filmmakers that such behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society. Censoring the horses-over-cliff shot in THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES (1957), for example, may not remove the cruelty that was inflicted on the horses, but it says to modern filmmakers: "If you do this, we will intervene, so don't waste your time and money. It is morally and legally WRONG."

Inflicting abuse on an animal for the sake of dramatic narrative simply cannot be justified under any circumstances. Stick a pin through a lizard and film it dying in horrific agony just so people can have a 'good time at the pictures'?...

Removing such material doesn't sweep it under the carpet, since documentary footage exists of the way mankind has treated animals throughout the years. We already know and understand our own track record on this issue, and we don't need to see it reflected in our popular culture, at least where such stuff has been organised by the filmmakers themselves for the purposes of a specific film. THE ANIMALS FILM (1981) is a good starter for anyone who wants to have their faith in humanity shaken to the very core.

Bottom line: Removing such footage doesn't take away the cruelty that was inflicted. But if we retain that footage, we tacitly condone it, and such a thing diminishes us, no matter how long ago the material was filmed, and under whatever circumstances. You cannot justify the unjustifiable.

[Gojirosan]

I see your view, but disagree with much of your post.

I think such footage should be included but clear warnings - perhaps even a new certificate.

I cannot see the value in censoring old films over this matter at all. Make it clear to the audience what went on, but don't remove it.

Censorship is as creeping and insidious as animal cruelty. What's done is done, energy should be spent preventing it happening again, not rewriting history.

[Nika]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

I see your view, but disagree with much of your post.

I think such footage should be included but clear warnings - perhaps even a new certificate.

I cannot see the value in censoring old films over this matter at all. Make it clear to the audience what went on, but don't remove it.

Censorship is as creeping and insidious as animal cruelty. What's done is done, energy should be spent preventing it happening again, not rewriting history.

I totally agree with what you say!