I am a vegi so dont like any animal being eaten BUT I also agree with that fact that censoring will not bring the animal back or undo the damage caused so there is no point in cutting it. If the cruelty was really bad then yeah maybe, like the turtle scene in Cannibal Holocaust. Yes I know people in tribes maybe do that in real life but that was made just for the film and I hate it. So yes I skip that scene when watching it.

With chickens, they are killed all the time for food so BBFC may not pay much attention to that in films like Hidden and Abnormal Beauty.

Speakin of Hideen, I didnt like that at all either. Tbh it was a waste of my time :lol:

Can't someone from the production (or Argento himself?) be contacted to give more details about the scene?

It's not about treating people like 'morons', it's about taking a moral stand on an issue where filmmakers cross the line into harming living creatures for nothing more important than a film. We may love those films with a passion, but that cannot justify the abuse of an animal nor the retention of that material for the sake of the historical record.

The BBFC really has moved on from the days of Sex and the Censors, as you suggest, but animal cruelty remains the least contentious aspect of their work. It was the one area least complained-about during James Ferman's reign.

As for the idea that 'nobody cares' - I'm sure that plenty people do care, hence this ongoing debate about INFERNO and the issues it raises. And if some of us in the UK care enough to engage in such a debate, you can bet that plenty of other people across the world - in countries where this kind of 'intervention' is not on the cards - feel exactly the same way.

But how does Argento's vegetarianism and love of aninals square with the lizard scene in DEEP RED? I'd still like to know if that scene was real or if - as was suggested elsewhere - it was simply a shot of a lizard trying to remove an appliance.

So, for no other reason than the 'carrying forward' of a scene in a movie, a living creature was basically tortured to death? The filmmakers could have illustrated the point in a thousand other different ways, but they chose to do it in this fashion? The rest of the film demonstrated an overabundance of imagination and craftsmanship, so it's not like they lacked the capacity to think of another means of expressing themselves. Of course, such behaviour amongst animals occurs naturally in the wild, and Mankind is carnivorous by nature, but this was staged for nothing more important than a film. Really, isn't the human animal supposed to be better than that?

But as a vegeterian, don't you think the animal deserves better than to have its death agonies preserved on film for all time, just because "cutting it won't make any difference"? If it doesn't make a difference, then surely it works the other way, too?

That the animal was killed needlessly for the purposes of 'entertainment' is bad enough, but there's no reason to preserve its final moments just because that's the way they 'used' to do things and we don't do it anymore. In fact, that argument doesn't hold water, since both HIDDEN and THE ISLE were produced in the last 10 years, and actor John C. Reilly walked off the set of MANDERLAY (2005) in protest over the killing of a donkey. These things are not a product of the distant past - they're still happening on movie sets all over the world. Maybe not as much as in the past, but even so...

Well you got a good point. Il just say that if it was killed for the film then yes I dont mind if they cut it. But then another part of me wants the full uncut movie as a collector. I think all movies with animal cruelty should have a animal free version on the dvd like CH but as most movies only have a few secs on that kinda scene its not a viable option.

So couldn't we argue the same point over, say, the surviving footage of the Nazi Holocaust? I mean, why document their suffering and indignity for all eternity? Well, the argument goes that it's so we'll never forget. But do we need to see it? Maybe that should be removed form all public viewing..? Hmmm...? And even with that footage, there are still neo-Nazi groups across Europe. Just, as you say, certain filmmakers still employ methods of animal cruelty in the production of their films in spite of such material being censored in Britain.

Film is a visual document and should be preserved as such. We can apply the same logic - so that 'we'll never forget', especially future filmmakers. To remove or destroy the visual document is unacceptable IMO. Let history show what these filmmakers did - removing it achieves nothing. It's a pointless exercise, especially this scene from Inferno. No, it's not essential to the film and I'll be getting the Blu-ray and probably won't even notice (providing it's edited well), but the fact is we should be treated like adults and allowed to see the work as it is documented.

I also recall watching the opening of a Gasper Noe film on FilmFour a while back which began with the horrendous killing of a horse. I presume this was passed by the BBFC as it was on TV. Yet again, another inconsistency. And I'm still not entirely convinced about Apocalypse Now either - wouldn't you also say that this sequence of ritualistic slaughter is unacceptable to retain as a historical record? Hell, let's just take every scene we find unpalatable and relegate it to the trash can, eh? No need to retain it, is there? I'm sure the pro-censorship lobby would happily see all our favourite films banished forever.

Once you're on the road of censorship it leads to ever-increasing levels. It won't just stop at one thing. And let's be clear here - the outlawing of illegal material such as child porn is NOT censorship. It's illegal, that's different from censorship. Now, killing an animal is NOT illegal. Treating it cruelly is illegal though, in the UK, so that needs to be enforced for certain. If the BBFC remove sight of an animal being treated cruelly, then that's an illegal act and should be removed - that's not censorship, that's enforcing the law and I agree with that. But is a cat eating a mouse cruelty? As far as I'm aware, it's the cat hurting the mouse, not mankind. Cats eat mice, as unsavoury as that might seem. ;)

It's a tricky issue - as there are points of law that need to be adhered to. Personally, I'd retain films in their entirety, but I also understand that the law has to come into play, so I agree with that too. I just personally find this cut from Inferno a particularly pointless one, especially in light of other material they've passed uncut.

I'd like to see an unrated option available in this country - but that's never likely to happen.

You cannot equate animal abuse for the purposes of entertainment with documentary footage of a historical event. One was created for the purposes of a night out at the pictures, while the other records an important chapter in human history which wasn't staged for the purposes of movie cameras. There really is no comparison between the two.

As I said in an earlier post, this isn't an issue confined to the distant past - it's still occurring today, on movie sets all over the world. If we cut the material and let people know it's been cut and why, that preserves the historical record. Doesn't that achieve what you're asking for, without adding to the indignity already suffered by the animal in question? Why do we need to SEE it for historical purposes, when simply KNOWING it was once there does exactly the same job?

I haven't seen this particular film, but I understand the scene in question records a ritual slaughter that was NOT staged by the filmmakers but simply recorded by them as part of the culture in which they were filming, and incorporated into their fictional narrative. That's a whole other kettle of fish, and one for which there can be no censorial justification. I recall another film shown on Channel 4 in which a dramatic narrative featured images of sheep being buried alive as part of a religious ritual in a Third World country, and this had simply been recorded as part of a festival. I strongly object to this kind of evil stupidity (especially in the name of religion! - but that's another argument), but there's a HUGE difference between filmmakers staging cruelty for their own purposes and simply recording what occurs naturally in the real world.

That's a valid argument, and one I share with you wholeheartedly. But we're talking about material which crosses the line into immorality and criminal negligence (it may not be criminal negligence in the country where it was shot, but it should be). I'd stand with you shoulder to shoulder in defence of THE NEW YORK RIPPER, RED TO KILL and any number of silly horror films, but when it comes to the debasement and killing of a living creature for the sake of 'entertainment', I will not be moved. There's no excuse for it, pure and simple.

I debated whether or not I should bring child porn into the equation, because that seemed like too extreme of a comparison, but it isn't, really. Both acts are immoral, but of course, we place a greater emphasis on the protection of children than animals. That's as it should be, but if both acts are immoral, then the argument that all such material should not only be removed but DESTROYED is completely valid. You can argue that one crime is more 'serious' than the other, but both cause immense suffering, and that's the point where censors and law enforcement agencies have every right to intervene. The 'historical record' be damned.

Well, that depends on the context. Sending it to slaughter for the purposes of creating food is one thing, but shoving a pin through a lizard and recording its agonies for a film is quite another.

The cat eating the mouse is still cruel, whatever the circumstances, but if Argento's cameraman simply recorded what happened naturally and they decided to incorporate the results into the film (for no good reason that I can see, but that's yet another argument!), then fair enough. But if they staged the event for the film, that's when it tips the balance into something very different, hence the BBFC's original decision.

I fully appreciate that impulse, and I have to admit, if the BBFC decides to press ahead with the cut in INFERNO, they'll have to formulate a pretty good reason for it in the light of remarks made about HIDDEN on this forum and elsewhere. But I worry, too, that the retention of such material could set an unfortunate precedent, the beginnings of a proverbial 'slippery slope'.

How?

I cannot see what you mean here. A cat eating a mouse is the proper and correct thing to happen as nature dictates. In what way can it be cruel?

Is a bear eating a salmon cruel?

Increasingly many of your points are making less and less sense to me.

This will all go around in circles and the debate now seems stale to me.

It's cruel in the sense that the mouse will hardly 'enjoy' being eaten alive. Nor will the salmon, for that matter. I'm not arguing that such things aren't the natural way of things, I'm arguing that it's wrong to set up such material for the purposes of 'entertainment'.

Not sure why, since I've offered perfectly lucid explanations for my point of view.