I've just watched the scene (again) on my BU DVD and, if the film is good for the UK market, wonder how it will work in terms of the music as Keith Emerson's score is really pounding at that point.

Also, it definitely looks like an insert shot so either someone got lucky and caught a cat eating a mouse on camera or the mouse was 'introduced' to the cat and nature took its course. Only Dario Argento and other members of the crew really know what happened, so is it worth writing a letter to the Italian maestro asking how that shot came about?

See, I probably wouldn't feel bad killing a mouse, rabbit or toad as they seem to be the biggest pests around here. They do more damage than good and breed like crazy.

I also just watched the scene, mostly because I really couldn't remember it. I agree that it looks like an insert, that is was a (un)lucky coincidence that someone captured it

I would, I feel bad if I accidently stand on a bug.

I usually put bugs together and have them fight to the death. They're only insects. Occasionally I'll feel bad. It depends on the bug though.

Just don't film it and submit it to the BBFC. They'll have to consult with bug experts around the world just in case cruelty was involved! :lol:

Bugs don't count under the BBFC guidelines as they are not counted as animals, so let the fight commence! Is it going to be live streamed so we can place bets?!

:lol: Too true.

Well...Buddhists consider ALL life sacred, so where's the consideration by the BBFC for this religious group? :lol:

Whatever the case, the BBFC have proved themselves thoroughly inconsistent and, ultimately, a law unto themselves. I understand the considerations they have to make - but come on, a cat eating a mouse? It's utterly ridiculous and wholly uncessary to cut this scene IMO.

As for people saying that because we all pretty much agree, that it makes this debate redundant, that's wrong. We pretty much all like the same films too, so why debate them either? And, actually, not everyone agrees on certain points - some say they can live with the cut whilst others say they can't - so that point is still open to debate IMO.

Before entering this debate, let me make my position clear up-front: I loathe and detest animal cruelty with an absolute passion, and I applaud the BBFC's stance on removing such material from our screens. It's one of the few censor boards in the world which does this (I believe India and Hong Kong have similar rules, though not as stringent), and it sends a clear message to filmmakers that such behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society.

However, the cat 'n' mouse scene in INFERNO is a borderline case because - as has been mentioned here by other posters - the footage looks like an insert, caught 'on the fly', perhaps by a 2nd unit (if there was such a thing on this particular movie!). However, if the killing was arranged by the filmmakers for the express purpose of filming it, then the BBFC are legally obliged to maintain the cut. It constitutes an incontrovertible act of cruelty, generated for no other reason than to capture it on film. You can argue that the cat is simply doing 'what comes naturally', but it's the fact that it was (probably) facilitated by the filmmakers themselves that tips the balance into the legal definition of cruelty.

However, I'm alarmed to read about the decapitation of a chicken in Michael Haneke's HIDDEN, which sheds new light on the BBFC's initial decision to order a cut to INFERNO. Elsewhere on the Net, people have claimed the chicken's death in HIDDEN makes a 'powerful narrative point'. However, if this was done for real, it was an act of cruelty committed for no other purpose than dramatic effect in a narrative film and is morally indefensible. There is simply no excuse for it, not in the age of digital effects of all descriptions, and I've written to the BBFC for clarification on this scene, especially with regard to its impact on their original decision to censor INFERNO. They cannot excuse Haneke's behaviour (if the chicken scene was real - I'm not sure this has been established beyond doubt) whilst simultaneously condemning Argento, whom they may consider an inferior filmmaker. In other words, what's good for the Arthouse goose isn't necessarily OK for the exploitation gander. Or something...

The same argument cannot be said for the lizard scene in DEEP RED. On another forum, Troy Howarth recalls reading this was faked, and that the lizard was writhing in an attempt to remove the appliance, making it seem real. If this cannot be proved (perhaps Alan Jones will know?), the BBFC will have no choice but to order its removal from any UK Blu-ray version. It's true that the scene makes no sense without the shot of the lizard, but those who bemoan its removal from the film should remember that for the sake of a bit of light entertainment (no matter how beloved by cult movie fans), a living creature was sent to its death in horrific agony, just to make a 'dramatic point'. If Lucio Fulci could be indicted on charges of animal cruelty for the fake dogs in A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN, then Argento should have faced similar charges for such a blatant act of unsimulated cruelty.

I'll let you guys know how the BBFC responds to my enquiry about HIDDEN.

If the BBFC insist on the cut I'm sure a quick email to Argento from Arrow will get the confirmation required that the shot in question was not set up purely for the purpose of shooting Inferno.

If the director tells the BBFC what they want to hear then they won't have any counter evidence so I'm sure a little effort from Arrow in the right direction before its too late should be able to convince the BBFC that this fairly minor bit of action can be let through

As far as "animal cruelty" in Italian films goes , this is pretty insignificant.
No turtle being cut open here

I remember watching Hidden and not think anything of that scene, presumably because the BBFC are so hot on animal cruelty that it must have been staged or faked.

That scene in Hidden looked 100% real to me. No tell-tale signs of CGI or anything like that. Presuming it was real, this killing was most certainly staged for the camera, as it's a pivotal element of the story, and served no purpose except for the sake of the narrative of the film. The chicken runs around headless as the boy watches on. I remember then wondering why the BBFC had passed it uncut, as it didn't look at all faked to me. Maybe it's because it's a quick kill? I don't know, but to my mind, I'm sure the animal objects just as much to a quick kill as to being treated cruelly.

So yes, this is an interesting case to bring up.

And here's a thought - since the BBFC won't cut stock footage if it hasn't been shot specifically for the film, couldn't Arrow dig out some cat/mouse nature footage and insert that instead..? :lol:

And that leads me to something else - if someone were to shoot a film and use excerpts from one of the cannibal films, would that still be cut as it's inserts from another work and not shot for the film in question..therefore no animal has been harmed in the making of that film..?

The BBFC don't like chickens! There were numerous chickens chopped up in The Pang Brothers 'Abnormal Beauty' too, which was released uncut.

I guess they class beheadings as 'quick kills'; so it's not 'cruel' enough.

Or, they just have a hard-on for Haneke. I found Hidden to be one of the most over-praised films of the decade.

I loved Hidden! :behindsofa:

A whole lotta people do, dude! :thumb:

I just found it boring! But I have that problem with Haneke - Funny Games is the only film I can make it through! I tend to snooze during his films. They're too lethargic for me.

So did I. It was one of the most intelligently written and classily filmed movies of the past 10 years and was, for me, one of the best 10 movies of that decade.

They certainly don't. They even passed the opening sequence of Pat Garret and Billy the Kid in which chickens, buried in sand, have their heads blown off in slow motion!

Sadly life isn't that simple. Arrow have appealed and there's nothing more that can done.

And they leave a chicken getting killed in a ritual in Mr.Vampire...

...but we're not allowed to see cockfights!

"Quick, clean kill" vs organised cruelty. To be fair, I'm on the BBFC's side - re: censoring cockfighting. And if it means my Angel Heart UK Blu is shorn of five seconds I don't care: perfectly happy to never see the cockfighting!

True, but I wonder why their is laws for one creature and no another as is perfectly ok for us to see organised Praying Mantis fights.

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

;)

Though this doesn't stop the cockfight happening, does it? Merely brushes it under the carpet.

Cruel or not, I think such things should be included. Censoring them creates a false impression. The chickens still went through it, removing your choice over seeing it doesn't change anything.

Replace "chickens" with "kids" and would you still argue that point?

We all support censorship to some degree.

Replace "chickens" with "car chases"?

You can go on for ever at that game. It's still spurious. The children argument especially. Chldren are protected all around the world. Filming their assault is a crime, everywhere, pretty much. So it wouldn't occur in a legitimate film. The law comes into play long before any censorship board.

Children are not raised in factories for people to eat. If they were it might all look very different. I see no benefit to the "brush under the carpet and pretend it didn't happen" approach to the animal issue. If you don't want to see it, don't buy the film or use your fast-forward button, or pressure for "animal cruelty free" alternative versions if you must.

Only cars aren't sentient beings and can't have cruelty inflicted on them. :confused:

Either way, my point stands: by removing scenes of animal cruelty it teaches the filmmaker that such practices will not, at least, be tolerated in this country and that they will not be able to profit from them.

And the chickens are "just there to be eaten" argument may be taken to task by some of the vegan and vegetarian members of the forums!

My main feeling that cutting Inferno feels remarkable folly is because cats eat mice on the hour, every hour and - set up or not - I can't justify seeing people feed their pet snakes live rodents whilst the BBFC removes something similar in a movie.

No, but their reckless use causes far more damage to animals and children than any kind of hideous fighting sport.

Oh, and I have long been involved in animal welfare and have been a vegetarian for over 30 years. I find the cutting of old films so people can pretend such things don't happen as offensive as the act itself. If it happened, nothing can be done about it now. Seeing it shows up how hideous such things are, hiding it through censorship just paints a false pretty picture.

But not in a fictional film!

The point is that inflicting brutality - or death - on a sentient being (animal or human) should be of obvious concern. Whilst I disagree with the cut to Inferno, I am glad the BBFC removes sequences of suffering inflicted upon helpless animals (note, however, they do not remove scenes filmed for a documentary so, if you wanted to do a piece on chickens in a battery farm, I imagine you'd be okay).

(I'm not a vegetarian actually: Ironically, given this discussion, I still eat chicken. ;) And I don't subscribe to animal rights - animal welfare, yes. So I'm not arguing my own intrinsic thoughts here, I'm merely pointing out why I think some degree of "protection" is needed).

This is an interesting dicussion, by the way, but I guess maybe we should get back to Inferno?

But surely, what's done is done, so the only concern can be one of imitation - hence my car chase point. I fail to see any benefit from removing such scenes - it's merely to cosset people (who shouldn't be cossetted) - it doesn't stop the cruelty from happening, but creates a false impression of a cruelty-free film industry.

More people would be concerned about animal welfare in cinema if they saw what has gone on in the past. If you hide it, who's to know what monstrosities can go on?

It's a solid point you've made but I guess I still err on the side of caution when it comes to letting some sequences of animal abuse through. My only wish is that the BBFC were consistent - as others have wisely mentioned in this thread, they've let through sequences a lot more contentious than the cat-mouse bit in the past!

Calum makes the valid point that censorship of such material - no matter how old - sends a message to filmmakers that such behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised society. Censoring the horses-over-cliff shot in THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES (1957), for example, may not remove the cruelty that was inflicted on the horses, but it says to modern filmmakers: "If you do this, we will intervene, so don't waste your time and money. It is morally and legally WRONG."

Inflicting abuse on an animal for the sake of dramatic narrative simply cannot be justified under any circumstances. Stick a pin through a lizard and film it dying in horrific agony just so people can have a 'good time at the pictures'?...

Removing such material doesn't sweep it under the carpet, since documentary footage exists of the way mankind has treated animals throughout the years. We already know and understand our own track record on this issue, and we don't need to see it reflected in our popular culture, at least where such stuff has been organised by the filmmakers themselves for the purposes of a specific film. THE ANIMALS FILM (1981) is a good starter for anyone who wants to have their faith in humanity shaken to the very core.

Bottom line: Removing such footage doesn't take away the cruelty that was inflicted. But if we retain that footage, we tacitly condone it, and such a thing diminishes us, no matter how long ago the material was filmed, and under whatever circumstances. You cannot justify the unjustifiable.

I see your view, but disagree with much of your post.

I think such footage should be included but clear warnings - perhaps even a new certificate.

I cannot see the value in censoring old films over this matter at all. Make it clear to the audience what went on, but don't remove it.

Censorship is as creeping and insidious as animal cruelty. What's done is done, energy should be spent preventing it happening again, not rewriting history.

I totally agree with what you say!

Yes, I'd like to see the BBFC include animal abuse (simulated or otherwise) outlined in its consumer advice. If the advice clearly says: "Contains strong violence, language and simulated animal abuse" or : "Contains strong violence, language and unsimulated animal abuse", prospective viewers can make up their own minds. Forewarned is forearmed!

However, I could only ever agree to images of unsimulated animal abuse where it wasn't staged by filmmakers for the purposes of 'entertainment'.

Couldn't agree more. Which is why you'll only ever hear me arguing the merits of censorship on this particular issue. Everything else is fair game, and people should be allowed to see what they want to see, within the law of the land. And if the law is too restrictive, it ought to be amended.

This is moot as treatment of animals in this way was outlawed decades ago in most countries .

Certainly in Italy and the US such scenes would be illegal so cutting them now is pointless.

But is censorship the mark of a civilised society? Or is a civilised society one that looks at such material and says as a whole - 'This is wrong.'

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.

So what do we do? Shouldn't a non-dictatorial society say 'We can see this and not be affected.' Or are we saying images like this cause recurrent behaviour of a similar nature?

Using that rationale, one could argue that Germany has censored its entire history from 1933 to 1945, such are the penalties for displaying a swastika or denying the Holocaust. The Nazi party and the Second World War are just not talked about in Germany and they find it amazing that is taught in schools, colleges and universities over here.

It's one thing pretending that something didn't exist and another to show it to an 'intelligent' audience with the right warnings and consumer information. It is in this sense that I agree that there is little point in removing scenes of animal cruelty from films made 50 years ago but, just as there are warnings for sex, violence and obscene language, they should maybe be a warning preceded the film to say that it includes "scenes involving animals which some viewers may find distressing".

Grindhouse put a warning like that preceding Cannibal Holocaust.

I wouldn't say that Germany has censored its entire history - because in this instance everyone is aware of what happened, it's not like they're trying to hide what they did or that its being covered up or anything.

No right-minded person thinks that killing an animal for entertainment is a good or acceptable thing. However, I just can't see what cutting old films achieves, except to make them more palatable for people who object to it. Sorry, but that's what the filmmaker filmed and those were the methods employed. It might be morally wrong, but it IS part of cinema's history. Why try and rewrite history? Personally, I think these works should be seen as intended, even if it is distasteful at times, if for no other reason than to show what horrid tactics were once used.

As for it sending a message to other filmmakers - no it doesn't. How can it if the scene(s) in question are removed - who's to know it was ever there?

Cutting animal cruelty doesn't negate history, it simply removes the visual representation of what is now considered an immoral and illegal act. Once a film crosses the line into offering the unsimulated abuse and killing of a living creature, no matter how long ago it was filmed, it becomes an offense against all that's supposed to be decent and humane about civilised society.

Retaining that material with appropriate warnings sounds reasonable at first glance, but what that means in practice is that the animal has not only been abused and killed for the sake of 'entertainment', but that it's final moments will be exhibited for all eternity just so we can feel appropriately guilty about it.

We can still feel ashamed of what these filmmakers have done without parading an animal's death in front of paying audiences. You could get exactly the same effect by removing this material and explaining up-front (on ad-mats, video packaging and the BBFC website) what has been cut and why. This way, historical accuracy is maintained whilst the animal in question is afforded some of the dignity it was denied at the end of its life.