Cult Labs

Go Back   Cult Labs > Cult Labels > Other Labels > Arrow Video > Arrow Archives

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 6th June 2010, 07:05 PM
bdc's Avatar
bdc bdc is offline
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Belgium
Default

I watched Inferno on tv last night (Prime) and somehow got the impression the shots of the cat eating the mouse were not staged...
I mean with so many cats running around,one is bound to stumble upon a mouse.
The lizard eating the moth looked possibly staged to me though.

The cat throwing and cats in a bag scene look like worse offenders against the act if throwing and bagging are considered cruel.
I'm certain no cats were really hurt,I wonder about Daria Nicolodi though...

Last edited by bdc; 6th June 2010 at 07:38 PM.
  #152  
Old 6th June 2010, 07:12 PM
Ex-member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOT ****ING HERE THAT'S FOR SURE!!!!
Default

I'd love to know how many whiny ****ers own "Creepshow".
Makes "Cannibal Holocaust" look like a PETA approved film with the amount of cockroaches they must have killed on set.

But....but.....cockroaches are pests.

So are germ filled mice!


But...but...cockroaches are not cute.

Beauty...the...beholder...in...the...is...eye...of .



And even if it was staged. All they did was feed a cat a mouse! Something cats do anyway!

Hey, you own a big snake...you feed it mice. Just like you have to feed any pet.
Filming it while you do it does not change the basic natural fact of something eating something it eats anyway, or turn it into a crime all of a sudden.
And mice are not rare, endangered or protected either.

Move on.
  #153  
Old 6th June 2010, 07:31 PM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
But there is a comparison to be had here. You say get rid of one act of recorded indignity but retain the other. No, the Holocaust wasn't staged for the cameras, but the footage was shot by the perprators as a visual record of their 'Final Solution', which makes it pretty grotesque footage when seen in that context.
Yes, it is grotesque, but it still wasn't perpetrated for the sake of entertainment. And most of the atrocities were filmed by the liberators, not by the Nazis themselves. There is a WORLD of difference between the recording of historical events and the killing of an animal for a film. Both are pretty ugly, but one of them is an immoral act in and of itself, while the other is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by others.

I understand what you mean: You've taken my argument to an illogical extreme by saying that if the animal stuff is censored, the Holocaust material should be censored, too. But I've already explained the difference between the two examples, so I won't repeat myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Because film is visual - to remove sight of it renders it useless as a visual document. The whole point of it is to be seen - whether we agree with it or not.
Nope, this doesn't hold water, for all the reasons I outlined in earlier posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
So you'll defend the preservation of images of this animal suffering horrendous cruelty but not a cat eating a mouse? That seems like redundant logic to me. To say it's okay because that's what they do in that part of the world is no difference to a cat eating a mouse, it's what cats do. So why is there this disparity in your logic?
Because one is the recording of an immoral act perpetrated by the filmmakers, while the other is a record of something which happens in the natural world. Both are equally ugly, but the world is an ugly place at times, and to censor material that happens in the real world is to deny the truth of what goes on around us. For example, I've long argued that British and US news coverage is particularly spineless because they refuse to show us what it actually means when, say, a bomb goes off in a crowded Baghdad marketplace. People should see the resulting carnage (or at least some of it - there's no need to rub our noses in the gutter). Again, this is stuff that occurs naturally in the world, and there's no justification for censoring it. Argento giving a mouse to a cat and recording the 'natural' outcome (if that's what, in fact, happened) is an act of deliberate cruelty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Exactly - you say it may not be criminal negligence in the country it was shot. That's the logic you've applied to Apocalypse Now so that must hold true for all films. And, actually, I don't there's a country on earth that has made it illegal for cats to eat mice. It's neither illegal nor immoral, so therefore cutting it is a redundant exercise.
It is immoral when the filmmakers cause it to happen just so it can be filmed for the purposes of entertainment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Exactly - but child abuse is illegal. Filming it is an aside - the act itself is illegal and therefore it's a given that any visual material must be destroyed. But this is not an historical record so it's an entirely different argument.
Animal abuse is also illegal in some countries. You may not want to put this kind of cruelty on a par with child abuse, but they're both equally vile and both are contenders for censorial intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
You think an animal is happier if it knows it's going to be killed humanely? I'd rather be treated cruelly and survive than be executed.
Sorry, you lost me there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
Now that's just ridiculous. The cat is just doing what cats do. They eat other, smaller animals - like mice. If it is as you say, an act of cruelty, then the whole cat species needs to be prosecuted.
OK, my wording was off on that one. As I said in an earlier posting, I meant 'cruel' in the sense that the mouse clearly doesn't enjoy being eaten. Another example would be what happens when you lift up a log in the garden - those beetles and woodlice run away because they don't want to become the victims of predators. In that sense, Nature is, indeed, a cruel son of a bitch.

I have to hold up my hands at this point and say: I can't believe this is something we even need to debate. It seems so obvious to me!

We'd all like to believe we're humane and selfless people. And yet here we are, on a public forum, arguing - in all seriousness! - that our 'right' to buy an uncensored video (!!!) trumps the welfare and dignity of an animal which died in agony at the hands of irresponsible filmmakers, for no better reason than it happened 'a long time ago' and 'nobody cares'.

It's clear to me that such a position is neither humane nor selfless.

NB. Daemonia, be assured I don't aim that final bit specifically at you. My thoughts are offered purely in the spirit of debate, nothing more.
  #154  
Old 6th June 2010, 07:57 PM
Cultist on the Rampage
Good Trader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42ndStreetFreak View Post
I'd love to know how many whiny ****ers own "Creepshow".
Makes "Cannibal Holocaust" look like a PETA approved film with the amount of cockroaches they must have killed on set.
Let's keep this discussion respectful and civil please.

I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved in this:

However, I do pretty much agree with Libretio in that if something is staged for the camera - and involves real animal cruelty - it might be best to err on removal. Let us not forget some people do enjoy scenes of helpless animals being tortured and it's nice to know we don't ponder to such types by having an "anything goes" policy on filmed animal abuse.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/596/EN/UK/

Now would anyone argue for that to be legal and in stores? I'd hope not.

However, I also agree with Deamonia that common sense should be used in some cases and that, if it's a brief horse fall or a quick kill from an old movie (and I don't think the Apocalypse Now example really works - it's a very, very quick kill and a split second image. Also check out the Hearts of Darkness documentary for proof it wasn't staged by Coppola), it's probably worth leaving it in. To be honest, I only really draw the line at something like Cannibal Ferox or Cannibal Holocaust - which are miles removed from a cat eating a mouse in Inferno or the brief squid lunch in Old Boy!

So I err somewhere in the middle of this debate!

And as for the comment Cannibal Holocaust is comparable to Creepshow: are you seriously saying a primate or a sea turtle is comparable to an insect? Either that's centuries of zoological and philosophical research right down the toilet or you've just discovered a new kind of cockroach!

Again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

Anyway, let's keep things civil here methinks!)
  #155  
Old 6th June 2010, 08:08 PM
Pete's Avatar
Cult Veteran
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Liverpool
Blog Entries: 13
Default

Those 'crush' videos make me really angry. If I ever meet the ****ers who make them..
__________________


Letterboxd | Youtube | Twitter
  #156  
Old 6th June 2010, 08:42 PM
Ex-member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosferatu View Post
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.
If someone at Arrow or the company that makes the extras can contact Argento to confirm thats what happened then the BBFC would be legally bound to leave the film uncut so its got to be worth a shot
  #157  
Old 6th June 2010, 08:54 PM
Cultist on the Rampage
Good Trader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phelings View Post
If someone at Arrow or the company that makes the extras can contact Argento to confirm thats what happened then the BBFC would be legally bound to leave the film uncut so its got to be worth a shot
We already did but as Almar said in reply to a previous comment about this - it's not that easy. Besides, Argento gets many, many requests and, obviously, doesn't have time to respond with long legal letters to them all (as well as provide proof: his word alone is not enough).
  #158  
Old 6th June 2010, 09:01 PM
Stephen@Cult Labs's Avatar
Cult Master
Cult Labs Radio Contributor
Good Trader
Senior Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Irvine, Scotland
Default

I think it's time to come to terms with the fact that the decision now in the hands of the BBFC.If they come bak and say they've changed their mind then fantastic.If they come back and say that the cut still stands,then there's nothing that can be done.we'll just have to live with it and eveyone can make up their minds as to wether or not they will buy it.Seems that it's all that can be done now.
  #159  
Old 6th June 2010, 09:01 PM
Ex-member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default

OH well , thanks for trying anyway.
Lets hope we have a pleasant surprise

As the cut will be minor and there's no other release on the cards the Arrow Bluray will be one for the collection until the uncut version appears , and if the extras are as good as usual the Arrow one will be kept anyway, although as I've already got the Eye for Horror on a dvd by itself the lineup of extras is less exciting for me - unless its in HD of course
  #160  
Old 6th June 2010, 11:58 PM
Ex-member
Good Trader
 
Join Date: May 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio View Post

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.
I've seen Apocalypse now and it was blatantly set up for the film, how many different camera angles do you see it from?
Closed Thread  

Like this? Share it using the links below!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Our goal is to keep Cult Labs friendly. If you feel discouraged from posting by certain members' behaviour then you can e-mail us in complete confidence.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
All forum posts are contributed by members of the site; Cult Labs cannot take responsibility for all content posted on the site. If you have an issue with content posted on the site please click the 'report post' button.
Copyright © 2014 Cult Laboratories Ltd. All rights reserved.