Cult Labs

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

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #161  
Old 6th June 2010, 11:59 PM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
  #162  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:00 AM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default

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).
  #163  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:13 AM
Cultist on the Rampage
Good Trader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Inspector Tanzi View Post
I've seen Apocalypse now and it was blatantly set up for the film, how many different camera angles do you see it from?
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.
  #164  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:16 AM
Cult Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
But don't cats feed on mice in the natural world? So why isn't this just a recording of a perfectly natural act?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
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?
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!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daemonia View Post
And likewise here, I'm just having a debate - there's no bad feeling on my part, just enjoying the rapport.
Thank gawd for that, sez I!...
  #165  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:17 AM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

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.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
  #166  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:21 AM
Cultist on the Rampage
Good Trader
 
Join Date: May 2009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Libretio View Post

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!!...
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?)
  #167  
Old 7th June 2010, 12:34 AM
Daemonia's Avatar
Cult Addict
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I agree that a line has to be drawn and we have laws in place for that purpose. I haven't watched the 'animal free' version of Holocaust, but I think I will at some point. I mostly bought the Grindhouse disc for the extras, which were worth the price alone.

I just think (as do most of us) that a cat eating a mouse, something it naturally does, is not the place to draw that line.
__________________
Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar
  #168  
Old 7th June 2010, 05:42 AM
Ex-member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Default

It says in The Animal Welfare Act 2006:

Quote:
2 In section 1 of the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 (prohibition of
films involving cruelty to animals), in subsection (4), for paragraph (b)
substitute—
“(b) in relation to England and Wales, the expression “animal”
means a “protected animal” within the meaning of the
Animal Welfare Act 2006.”
Quote:
13 For section 3 of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 (interpretation)
substitute—
“3 Interpretation
In this Act “wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a
“protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act
2006.”
Quote:
2 “Protected animal”
An animal is a “protected animal” for the purposes of this Act if—
(a) it is of a kind which is commonly domesticated in the British Islands,
(b) it is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary
basis, or
(c) it is not living in a wild state.
In the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981:

Quote:
SCHEDULE 5
ANIMALS WHICH ARE PROTECTED
Common name
Adder (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Bats, Horseshoe (all species)
Bats, Typical (all species)
Beetle, Rainbow Leaf
Burbot
Butterfly, Chequered Skipper
Butterfly, Heath Fritillary
Butterfly, Large Blue
Butterfly, Swallowtail
Cricket, Field
Cricket, Mole
Dolphin, Bottle-nosed
Dolphin, Common
Dragonfly, Norfolk Aeshna
Frog, Common (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Grasshopper, Wart-biter
Lizard, Sand
Lizard, Viviparous (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Moth, Barberry Carpet
Moth, Black-veined
Moth, Essex Emerald
Moth, New Forest Burnet
Moth, Reddish Buff
Newt, Great Crested (otherwise known as Warty newt)
Newt, Palmate (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Newt, Smooth (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Otter, Common
Porpoise, Harbour (otherwise known as Common porpoise)
Slow-worm (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Snail, Carthusian
Snail, Glutinous
Snail, Sandbowl
Snake, Grass (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Snake, Smooth
Spider, Fen Raft
Spider, Ladybird
Squirrel, Red
Toad, Common (in respect of section 9(5) only)
Toad, Natterjack
Quote:
SCHEDULE 6
ANIMALS WHICH MAY NOT BE
KILLED OR TAKEN BY CERTAIN METHODS
Common name
Badger
Bats, Horseshoe (all species)
Bats, Typical (all species)
Cat, Wild
Dolphin, Bottle-nosed
Dolphin, Common
Dormice (all species)
Hedgehog
Marten, Pine
Otter, Common
Polecat
Porpoise, Harbour (otherwise known as Common porpoise)
Shrews (all species)
Squirrel, Red
Quote:
ANIMALS WHICH ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE WILD
Common name
Bass, Large-mouthed Black
Bass, Rock
Bitterling
Budgerigar
Capercaillie
Coypu
Dormouse, Fat
Duck, Carolina Wood
Duck, Mandarin
Duck, Ruddy
Eagle, White-tailed
Frog, Edible
Frog, European Tree (otherwise known as Common tree frog)
Frog, Marsh
Gerbil, Mongolian
Goose, Canada
Goose, Egyptian
Heron, Night
Lizard, Common Wall
Marmot, Prairie (otherwise known as Prairie dog)
Mink, American
Newt, Alpine
Parakeet, Ring-necked
Partridge, Chukar
Partridge, Rock
Pheasant, Golden
Pheasant, Lady Amherst's
Pheasant, Reeves'
Pheasant, Silver
Porcupine, Crested
Porcupine, Himalayan
Pumpkinseed (otherwise known as Sun-fish or Pond-perch)
Quail, Bobwhite
Rat, Black
Squirrel, Grey
Terrapin, European Pond
Toad, African Clawed
Toad, Midwife
Toad, Yellow-bellied
Wallaby, Red-necked
Wels (otherwise known as European catfish)
Zander
The Dormice have furry tails while the mouse in the film has a normal scaly tail (probably a House Mouse). Listed as an Invasive species in the British Isles.
  #169  
Old 7th June 2010, 07:08 AM
Philleh's Avatar
Cult Acolyte
Good Trader
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Cardiff
Blog Entries: 45
Default

Those squish videos are repulsive; they sound, disgustingly, somewhat pornographic in a horrid sense!

Cannibal Holocaust was a fictional work with a functioning narative; and clumsy decision making during production resulted in questionable and unfogivable footage being produced.

I can't see how they can be compared. They are radically different types of film. I'd bracket squish as snuff footage!
__________________

Welcome to The Deuce

Last edited by Philleh; 7th June 2010 at 07:29 AM.
  #170  
Old 7th June 2010, 07:41 AM
Ex-member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NOT ****ING HERE THAT'S FOR SURE!!!!
Default

Blah.

If you care about something alive being killed for entertainment only..then yes. Cry a bleeding tear fro all those cockroaches and burn you "Creepshow" DVD's.
Or you "Oldboy"...poncy artistic credibility or not.

Stages of evolution has nothing to do with it. Try to stamp on a roach and it will try to get away...survival instinct.
So if you have a problem with kill any animal for fun, bleed your heart over Romero and many others as well.

But this is all garbage any way (concerning old films) because:

1) Acts have already been committed. You are not changing anything removing them..

2) IF you have a moral problem with the killing of animals for entertainment. DON'T WATCH/SUPPORT THE FILM AT ALL! Censored or not!
Anyone on here who moans about that damn lousy mouse but buys the cut "Inferno" anyway....is a hypocrite. So who care what they think.

Libretio has purely joined to post on this thread only and tomfly the PETA flag and tut tut at beastly fellows.
Well they don't have to buy/support ANY DVD where a fluffy cute critter is snuffed if they do not want.
So they are happy.
So be happy and leave the rest of us to wallow in our barbarity.

And at the end of the day...it's a damn cat eating a damn mouse! Priorities!
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.