Trust me, filmmakers and distributors are more than aware of the BBFC's stance on this matter, and the Board's website provides ample evidence of the cuts they've applied to films over the years, primarily for reasons of animal abuse and potentially 'obscene' material within the R18 category.

Why would I feel guilt? I didn't harm the animal, so why should I feel ashamed? I don't buy films for the sole purpose of seeing animal cruelty - but if it's there, then there's not a lot anyone can do about that, except censor it.

I still think cutting horsefalls and cats eating mice is a pointless exercise. For the more extreme instances of cruelty, I can understand it. That's why I think the BBFC should have a scale of seriousness. After all, not all animal cruelty is obvious - what about grazing horses suddenly being forced to become workhorses, pulling wagons etc? I don't see anyone up in arms about that, but it's equally as cruel to the animal.

The point becomes even more absurd when they can pass Oldboy which features an unsimulated sequence of a man eating a live squid. That's right, he chews through this creature while it's alive, and obviously in incredible pain. But that's okay, say the BBFC. But not a cat eating a mouse.

As far as 'guilt' was concerned, I was speaking in general terms. But in an earlier post, you said:

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.

As long as we know the material was once there, and that it has been removed, we don't need to retain images of animals suffering needlessly just to maintain the guilt of those responsible. It isn't necessary to see it, so long as we're informed of its removal. Doesn't that scenario maintain the historical record, without adding to the animals' indignity by putting its death throes on public display for the rest of eternity?

The scale of abuse can't be quantified by how much suffering has been endured. Either the animal suffers for the sake of 'entertainment' or it doesn't. Whether it's kicked or tripped or slowly dissected alive for the benefit of a spurious 'dramatic effect' - ANY such behaviour is inhumane and cannot be justified. And that includes deliberate horse-trips which can cause massive damage to otherwise healthy animals.

One of the excuses I've heard for this scene (and it IS an excuse, not a justification) is that the eating of live octopus is frequently indulged in Korean restaurants and is viewed as a delicacy. If that's true, then I'm speechless. But the same kind of treatment is doled out to lobsters on a regular basis in UK restaurants, so we can't claim the moral high ground.

I don't dispute the lack of consistency applied by the BBFC, and your point about OLDBOY is very well taken.

By the way, I'm told the octopus scene in OLDBOY was filmed three times, twice with dead creatures, and once with a live animal. The actor didn't feel the 'dead' versions were effective enough, so he opted to try his luck with the live version. It was the 'live' take that was used in the finished film.

Nice.

Not.

I think it's very hard to determine what is 'serious' animal cruelty and what is not as who is to say where the line lies? Different cultures have different attitudes towards different animals, such as the squid scene in Oldboy. In Asia they have very different opinions of what is right vis-a-vis fish and other waterborne invertebrates. I've seen a video online of people in an Asian country (I'm not sure which one) eating a fish that, despite being cooked, is still alive and can be seen trying to breathe when they touch its gills with their chopsticks. If you look at the film like The Isle, obviously Koreans don't have a problem with taking a fish out of water, cutting part of its flesh off to cook and eat before returning the wounded fish back to the water to fend for itself.

In the same way that opinions about how to cheat animals are different around the world, they also differ wildly across Britain and, as many people here don't really see the issue in the cat eating a mouse, there will be others who would be horrified by the very idea of a film including a scene where a mouse is killed and eaten.

I'm not being an apologist to the BBFC, far from it, only to suggest that they have a very difficult job when it comes to deciding what should be acceptable and what should not. The easiest way around this problem is to let the viewer decide for themselves by introducing an 'unrated' category with information for the viewer on the DVD/BD packaging.

The bottom line is that there are no other countries where this film would be censored.
The US and Europe treat adults like adults , not to be looked after by the Nanny State.

We are the stupid odd ones out .
Nobody else cares.

I just sat and watched Sex and The Censors , the notorious 1991 C4 documentary that I taped at the time and we have come a long way since those dark days of stupidity and although it took Britain until the 21st century to actually get into the 20th century we are still playing catchup with the rest of the world where citizens are not treated like morons

I have read through thris thread and it gets quite exhausting.

Regarding the Old Boy scene - there is an argument that can be applied that the scene carries the story forward. I think this is true.

(I'm going to bight my lip tightly on the subject of people judging what varying cultures like to eat. People that have a problem with different cultural eating habits - and then get butt-hurt when the BBFC cuts out 4 needless seconds of footage from a film for whatever reason - need to have a word with themselves).

It's been many a year since I watched Inferno on my VHS copy but I can guess that the cut scene in question is just random Argento tomfoolery - and he wont even remember it if asked, IMO. I do not think it will be missed.

I will be buying the DVD.

Pretty irrelevant whether eating habits can justify cruelty.
Would not even consider a cut dvd having had it uncut for 10 years.
But the Bluray is likely to be irresistable

Exactly, the Blu-ray will be bought without a shred of hesitation, however objectionable the BBFC tampering may be. I just re-watched this on Italian DVD and it remains a firm Argento favourite with its gorgeous imagery and ominous atmosphere, can't wait to see it in hi-def.

I imagine a couple of the posts above were aimed my way so, to address them very briefly, I would just say that I don't think that eating habits justify animal cruelty -- they are just an indication of that culture's attitude towards a certain animal or life form. These cultural norms will therefore have a huge leaning on what goes into the films made in the country.

If the infamous mouse scene in Inferno was was staged and the mouse was deliberately fed to the cat then it does make me uncomfortable but if, as is more likely given Argento's vegetarianism and love of animals, that it was something fortuitously caught on the set by a second unit and brilliantly weaved into the narrative, then I don't have a problem with it and believe it should be kept in.