Inferno - The BBFC Verdict (carry the chat about the BBFC on here only!)

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by loops

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.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Zombie Dude

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!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

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?!

[Zombie Dude]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

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!

Too true.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu

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?!

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

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.

[Libretio]

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.

[phelings]

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

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

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.

[Daemonia]

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..?

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..?

[Philleh]

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.