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!

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.

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!

Yes, I'd like to see the BBFC include animal abuse (simulated or otherwise) outlined in its consumer advice. If the advice clearly says: "Contains strong violence, language and simulated animal abuse" or : "Contains strong violence, language and unsimulated animal abuse", prospective viewers can make up their own minds. Forewarned is forearmed!

However, I could only ever agree to images of unsimulated animal abuse where it wasn't staged by filmmakers for the purposes of 'entertainment'.

Couldn't agree more. Which is why you'll only ever hear me arguing the merits of censorship on this particular issue. Everything else is fair game, and people should be allowed to see what they want to see, within the law of the land. And if the law is too restrictive, it ought to be amended.

This is moot as treatment of animals in this way was outlawed decades ago in most countries .

Certainly in Italy and the US such scenes would be illegal so cutting them now is pointless.

But is censorship the mark of a civilised society? Or is a civilised society one that looks at such material and says as a whole - 'This is wrong.'

As far as I'm concerned, censorship white-washes history and leaves these filmmakers with no sense of responsibility. This IS how films were once made - censoring it is to absolve the filmmakers of their guilt and achieves nothing.

So what do we do? Shouldn't a non-dictatorial society say 'We can see this and not be affected.' Or are we saying images like this cause recurrent behaviour of a similar nature?

Using that rationale, one could argue that Germany has censored its entire history from 1933 to 1945, such are the penalties for displaying a swastika or denying the Holocaust. The Nazi party and the Second World War are just not talked about in Germany and they find it amazing that is taught in schools, colleges and universities over here.

It's one thing pretending that something didn't exist and another to show it to an 'intelligent' audience with the right warnings and consumer information. It is in this sense that I agree that there is little point in removing scenes of animal cruelty from films made 50 years ago but, just as there are warnings for sex, violence and obscene language, they should maybe be a warning preceded the film to say that it includes "scenes involving animals which some viewers may find distressing".

Grindhouse put a warning like that preceding Cannibal Holocaust.

I wouldn't say that Germany has censored its entire history - because in this instance everyone is aware of what happened, it's not like they're trying to hide what they did or that its being covered up or anything.

No right-minded person thinks that killing an animal for entertainment is a good or acceptable thing. However, I just can't see what cutting old films achieves, except to make them more palatable for people who object to it. Sorry, but that's what the filmmaker filmed and those were the methods employed. It might be morally wrong, but it IS part of cinema's history. Why try and rewrite history? Personally, I think these works should be seen as intended, even if it is distasteful at times, if for no other reason than to show what horrid tactics were once used.

As for it sending a message to other filmmakers - no it doesn't. How can it if the scene(s) in question are removed - who's to know it was ever there?

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.