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.