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).

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.

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

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

But don't cats feed on mice in the natural world? So why isn't this just a recording of a perfectly natural act? Surely removing this scene is denying the truth of what happens - cats eat mice on a daily basis. Removing this scene won't stop it happening - that's the gist of my argument. I'm not advocating the levels of cruelty seen in the cannibal flicks, that's needless and senseless cruelty by man towards animal - but, it is what was done in the course of producing the movie. Removing those scenes might make it more palatable, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

At the end of the day, if you believe that Argento treated an animal cruelly to make his film, then you should boycott it altogether. After all, you're buying a product that involved animal cruelty in its making - even if it's absent from the release. If you feel that strongly, then I fully expect you not to buy it and support this reckless filmmaker by lining his pockets. So just how strongly do you feel about it?

And likewise here, I'm just having a debate - there's no bad feeling on my part, just enjoying the rapport. :)

If the BBFC decides to retain the cut in INFERNO:

I was wondering if, instead of cutting the scene, Arrow could either pixellate or otherwise obscure the offending shot? It still amounts to 'censorship', but at least it wouldn't interrupt the editorial flow.

If I recall correctly, Fox released the movie on VHS many moons ago, and they 'covered' the cut by slowing down one of the surrounding shots, thereby preserving the music score which is such an important part of this particular sequence.

If it's too late for that, perhaps this could be considered for any future release of DEEP RED? Unless proof can be obtained that the lizard wasn't impaled for real, perhaps the offending shot can be pixellated rather than removed altogether? A note about this alteration can be added to the beginning of the film, or as part of the supplemental section.

Not a perfect solution, perhaps, but slightly better than removing it in its entirety. Would it satisfy the requirements of the BBFC, I wonder? I don't see why not, since it removes all visual traces of the cruelty (had we been able to hear the lizard making a sound of some kind, that might have had to be removed, too).

He filmed the ritual, yes. But it was happening anyway and the entire crew knew it was, giving them time to film it. Did you see Hearts of Darkness (his wife's on-set documentary on the film)? If not I advise you do. There was an entire ritual happening at the time - there's some really nasty footage of pigs being impaled in that, with a slightly bemused/ possibly stoned Dennis Hopper looking on.

Because it was (probably) engineered by the filmmakers themselves for the recording of a film. That's an absolutely crucial difference and one that the BBFC applies as part of its legal criteria.

I've avoided a number of films for reasons of animal cruelty. For years, I avoided MEN BEHIND THE SUN because of the scene in which a cat is supposedly eaten alive by hundreds of starving rats. The director refused to answer direct questions about this material, making him seem like low scum until - lo and behold! - it turns out the whole thing was faked and that the director 'avoided direct questions' in order to maintain the film's brutal reputation. And now that I'm 'free' to see the movie unhindered by moral outrage (!), it's nowhere to be found!!...

I don't mind supporting 'reckless filmmakers' if their work has been censored for reasons of animal cruelty. After all, I have the UK and US version of DEEP RED on DVD since - lizard scene aside - it's a masterpiece. But after seeing CANNIBAL FEROX many years ago (the snake and monkey scene springs immediately to mind), I opted to avoid such foul tripe. I'd like to see the cruelty-free version of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, but I won't spend money on the US DVD, and the UK version is missing bits of simulated gore and sexual violence alongside the animal stuff, so I can't go with that, either.

Does this make me a hypocrite? Well, if we avoided films created by people whose character and viewpoint we didn't like, we wouldn't be able to watch anything at all! Common sense has to be applied on a film-by-film basis, I think. After all, there's no point watching something if you KNOW beforehand that it contains material that's going to offend you! As you can imagine, I won't be rushing out to buy HIDDEN anytime soon!!

Thank gawd for that, sez I!...

I didn't realise it was documented in Hearts of Darkness - that certainly clears that up and explains why the BBFC passed it. But my point about preserving images of an animal in its death still stands.

But...anyway....let's hope the BBFC see sense. I don't think anyone here is excusing animal cruelty, just a bit bewildered at the fact of a cat eating a mouse being considered animal cruelty. I personally believe it was filmed off the cuff, so to speak, and not staged for the camera. That's my opinion, anyway - it doesn't look staged to me, but more like it was shot on the spur of the moment when they saw the cat had caught a mouse.

The director may deny that scene is real but I think he's talking ass and feeling somewhat guilty many decades after-the-fact. Anyone who seriously believes he gave a cat a sedative, poured jam on it and then let rats (rats!) "lick" it off before reviving said moggy and giving it a plate of food is... well... I have a bridge I can sell you, put it that way.

I think anyone arguing anything goes with animal cruelty (such as Cannibal Holocaust) needs to answer my point about squash videos etc: you want these freely available? It's been done, right? It's documented. Should they be out there?

If we accept not then I think we need to accept a line should be drawn somewhere (as an aside, Cannibal Holocaust plays much better without the animal stuff than with - who wants to see that stuff a second time anyway?)