at a guess i would say


the gator scene would definitely be gone

the anaconda vs whatever that animal was id say 50/50

and they may not like the extreme body piercing

I think everything else should be ok

Wow, thats great news for UK fans really. Of course it would be better if it was uncut but it's interesting that they have given some pretty clear reasoning.

As has already been pointed out most serious fans will have an uncut copy (I certainly do, and have done since the VHS days - the Grindhouse DVD being the latest version I've picked up) but just the loss of the muskrat scene isn't really a problem. I've always found that the most shocking part of the film because it's such a botch job - the thing obviously suffers pretty badly. The way I see it if you've already got it uncut and are that bothered about it then you won't be buying the Shameless release anyway and there's no point in being negative about it.

Personally, as someone that grew up in the dark days of Ferman, it's refreshing that things have come so far. Really interested to see what the 2011 re-edit turns out like in comparison to the original and to see what it looks like in HD. Shame that The Cockfighter will never see the light of day over here.

I have various versions of Holocaust,but I'll be picking this up as;
1.It's on Blu Ray
and
2.I'm very interested to see what Deodato does with it.:nod:

Snap! :)

I only own one copy on DVD, but I'll definitely pick up at least one copy of this for the reasons you stated above.

So the BBFC think the turtle killing was "quick clean and humane".
I think we must have watched different films.
I'm on the lookout for an April 1st somewhere .
This must be a joke.

Having said that , if an HD version is on the way at least it means we may get a true uncut version somewhere as long as Deodato is not going to do a Lucas on us

Shameless seem quite proud that they will be releasing a version SHORTER than the BBFC cut and that fans will be happy with that because the director approved it.
No sale here I'm afraid whether or not its director approved.

yeah the turtle scene is very hard to watch.
I cannot watch the whole sequence. never have lol

Wow, this is a shock. I've never seen the film myself but from what I've heard from people on the forum, I was expecting a lot more cuts. :clap: to the BBFC for growing up a little more.

Sarah? I'm assuming the 2 versions will be in the same release but on seperate discs right?

WOW! o_o I'm really surprised by this decision, I think I even stated previously somewhere on this forum that it would still be cut heavily, but there you go, I was wrong. I think a LOT of horror fans out there are going to very surprised at this decision. The other thing is, where does this leave Customs for siezing uncut versions of Cannibal Holocaust, since practically this legal UK release will virtually be uncut as the scene they asked to be cut out is only a mere.. 14 seconds? I don't even think it lasted that long, it was more like.. a few seconds on screen.

I don't know what Shameless have planned for it so far (haven't read full release threads on it), but, it should (could?!) contain a version that is animal cruelty free, and the fullest version with the one mandated 14s cut. Would be cool to see it without all the animal cruelty anyway.

But... Why are some people still complaining about the 14 seconds? lol That's madness. I think it's even lucky to get the film through the BBFC with all the other previous cuts waived. But yeah, really surprised, looking forward to this release! I don't much care for the animal cruelty in any case, so this could become my only release I'll view when it's released! :D Looking forward to it!

Hear hear, couldn't have said it better myself. An animal cruelty free release in HD is definitive in my eyes.

I'm interested to know/see how this will work.

Is this coming out on Blu-Ray as well?

Yep! It will be Shameless' second HD release after New York Ripper

Thats what I mean.
It's integral to the film but it ranks as the worst of it's kind in the films of this nature.
It's not quick by any means, it's not clean and it's certainly not humane.

Are we sure that Shameless submitted the exact same version as Grindhouse dvd ?

Surely some precutting must have been involved for the BBFC to be making such obviously inaccurate comments.

Cut the muskrat but leave the turtle :confused:

2 out of 2 with cuts.
Shameless indeed.

The animal cruelty is part of the reason this film has such a reputation.
For any of it to be cut is bad.

I still don't understand why people waste money buying censored films when uncut versions are so easily available

What about the last road to hell sequence, surely that would be cut?

I agree it is a very graphic scene. I am of course in no position to speak on behalf of the BBFC or anybody else for that matter, so the following is merely my thoughts on that matter. Just a warning that it does get a little graphic from here on in!

Just re-watching the scene now, maybe it's because the first thing to come off is the turtles head - almost everything is severed on the first cut of the knife - with the exception of the all the skin. Everything after that point, (ie the kicking of the turtle, the movement of the mouth, etc) could be considered motor reflex and therefore, while it looks horrible, might not be classed as cruel to the animal. It's just like when a chicken is beheaded, it still flies around for a while. Such scenes with chickens are, I'm sure, available in many UK films (Faces Of Death the one I can think of off the top of my head). It may also have helped that there is footage of the actual eating the turtle in the film. It, in-a-way, puts into context why the turtle was killed.
I do agree that it is a very drawn out scene and deliberately shot to be as graphic as possible though.
I believe that the fact they ate the turtle afterwards plays a huge impact on that scene being (considered) allowed through uncut.

I'd rather buy an animal cruelty free version because animal cruelty is just not what I'd want to watch fully uncut regardless of how it was "meant" to be seen. I don't call that wasting money and besides I'll be buying any Shameless HD release anyway as a way of helping them release more classic films in HD in the future, every little helps! :)

Plus, you have to realise that Deodato himself is overseeing this edit, so it can almost be viewed as Cannibal Holocaust: The Director's Cut.

Many films are re-released in different cuts depending on certain parties preferences - look at Blade Runner as an example.

I think people tend to get hung-up on what 'uncut' can mean sometimes. All films are edited before release, plus 'extended versions' of some films add absolutely nothing to the story, on occasions.

I don't think that the proposed BBFC approved version will lose any of its raw visceral impact through the loss of 14 seconds of a muskrat being killed, and I am really pleased that this film has got through virtually unscathed.

I have uncut DVD releases, but will definitely be picking this up in HD. It will be very interesting to see Deodato's revised version, too; he has admitted to regretting the animal violence on many occasions, so with that in mind I'm not sure why people are complaining - it's not as if he's being forced to make it, or that they are being forced to buy it, either.

I'll believe it when I see it. The turtle death is the most protracted, vile scene of animal cruelty in the entire film! No way could it be described as quick, clean or humane.

As has already been stated, this was not a formal classification by the BBFC - thats still to come. I will be amazed if the turtle scene is left intact.

It will definately be interesting to see what the final verdict turns out to be!

No offence, but to all the people who state that they would prefer to see an animal-cruelty free version of Cannibal Holocaust is like asking for a violence-free Fulci film. No-one likes animal cruelty, but it IS part and parcel of what makes films like Cannibal Holocaust so notorious and extreme. If you really can't handle it, then stay away altogether, you have no business going near this film at all. You'd all go mad if Shameless or Arrow released a Fulci movie with all the gore taken out, as the gore is what has, initially, given those films their reputation and were highly sought after in their uncut form during the dark days of Ferman. What if Argento went back to Suspiria and cut out all the violent set pieces - would any of you call that a 'definitive' edit? Similarly with Cannibal Holocaust, the animal violence is what gave it its notorious reputation and labelled as 'the film that goes all the way'. To cut the animal violence turns it into 'the film that goes some of the way'.

Now, I'm not an advocate of animal cruelty, but it's undeniably a part of trhe film's fabric. It's what gives it that 'What the...?' factor and blurs the lines between fact and fiction and disorientates the viewer into questioning everything they're seeing. It's a horrible device to use, but very effective nonetheless.

However, if this does only get 14 secs of cuts, it truly will be a landmark moment in BBFC history and I applaud Shameless for pushing the envelope that little bit further. Will I get a copy? Of course, I'm curious to see Deodato's revised edit. But definitive? Please. The film in its original, uncut form is the definitive version. And it's strange, as I've said elsewhere, that the animal violence is frowned upon and yet no-one seems at all bothered by the Road To Hell sequence that features real human death. Some funny standards there, I think. Don't hurt the animals, but the execution of human beings is fine. Odd.

Just my opinions, as always...

I think we've already been over this exact same argument in the other thread for this release so I'd rather not dredge it up again if you don't mind.

Can we leave this thread for discussion of the BBFC's advice and Shameless's decision to release both versions of the film please?

Not saying don't discuss the animal cruelty as it's part of the BBFC's advice, but not people's decisions as to whether they want to watch it or not which is a personal choice as I'm sure we can appreciate.

Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

Yep, they'll be on the same release.

As for why the turtle would remain, as some have been asking, I think the BBFC has decided it is "humane" as the head is removed first and so its movements after that are motor reflexes. So, while it looks vile, the turtle isn't in any pain. Plus they have taken into account the fact that it was eaten by the cast, crew and locals.

This is as much as I understand about the advice at any rate!



Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

As Sarah just mentioned the head is severed cleanly right at the start of the scene and all you're seeing after that is the motor reflex - it's not nice but the common understanding is that the suffering would be minimal. If you had your head cleanly sliced off in an instant you'd twitch around too but you would be dead instantly. If they had slowly sawn the head off, or cut into the shell without decapitating the turtle then that would have been tortuous for the thing. The muskrat scene is exactly that - a slow, botched and painful death.

As for the Last Road To Hell footage, that's clearly pre-existing documentary footage that wasn't shot specifically for the sake of the production. That stuff has been uncut in the UK for a while now though hasn't it? (I've never seen a cut copy so can't be certain!)

I've said it before but I don't really see the point of these cruelty cuts these days - animal cruelty in films is largely a thing of the past now and is (rightly) unacceptable in modern films but cutting this stuff now isn't going to bring the original animal back is it?

Still, this whole debate is pretty interesting and I'm keen to see exactly what Deodato does when he re-edits the film.

Wow, great news, and regardless of if there's any footage missing, I'll definitely be picking this up due to the fact that it's finally on BluRay!

They passed that last time around. Some (not all) of it is faked anyway, if you look at the behind the scenes gallery on the Grindhouse disc there are photo's of them filming one of the executions.


Also, as horrible as the turle scene is, it's beheaded as soon as they pull it out of the water.

That is absolutely fantastic news regarding the BBFC's advice. I was deliberating on whether or not to buy this edition but I'll certainly be getting it now to see what Deodato does with his film and also to see the new HD transfer :) (I can live without the muskrat scene).

Unfortunately it puts me personally in a bit of a pickle as I've just written an analysis of the cuts imposed on the VIPCO edition for my undergrad dissertation! :lol: :doh:

Although, as a result of delving into the BBFC's inner workings for my research I thought perhaps I could answer a few things and raise one question.

Firstly, the turtle is killed instantly so I think that explains why it is considered to be "more humane" than the muskrat which obviously suffers a great deal. But I do question the heavy-handedness deployed by the actors when hauling the turtle from the water. I don't know how much a turtle 'feels' but the way they drag it out of the water could be interpreted as "cruel".

Also, with regard to The Last Road To Hell. It's in the VIPCO edition in its entirety and I believe the reason for this is that it wasn't filmed specifically for the purpose of the film. Indeed, if it were it would make Cannibal Holocaust a genuine "snuff" film and we probably wouldn't be sitting here getting all excited about its impending HD release!


The one question I do have is, assuming all the animal 'cruelty' gets passed uncut (with the exception of the muskrat), where does this place the BBFC with regards to The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937? The act is designed to:
The BBFC are required by law to follow this act, and so it would appear that they are now to be reinterpreting that law and this decision (assuming all goes through as planned) will certainly set a new precedent with regards to animal death in film. Obviously, the film has not changed, the animals are still killed in the same way that they were ten years ago when VIPCO released their butchered edition. The key terms in that outline of the act are "suffering" and "cruel infliction of pain or terror". Whilst the turtle and the monkey die immediately through decapitation would one not still consider such form of death "cruel"? Also, let us not forget that the pig is kicked (cruel?) and then shot in the stomach. It appears to die immediately but (I don't have the scene to hand so this is from memory) I think the cut away is pretty quick, can we be sure that the animal did not suffer as a result of the bullet wound?


Having said all of that, I am certainly very glad that the BBFC have thoroughly revised their opinions on Cannibal Holocaust since the last time they reviewed the film. Whilst I'm not an advocate of animal cruelty it is slightly disappointing that we still, as adults, are not "permitted" to see the full version of the film in this country, but I think the fact that Shameless are to be releasing the film in HD and also with the added bonus of a new Deodato cut makes up for all of that! If I've interpreted the first post correctly it seems to me that Deodato will be removing more of the animal cruelty than is BBFC necessary. I wonder how he will alter the musical score in order to maintain continuity.


EDIT: I've just watched the muskrat scene (uncut EC and cut VIPCO). I've never actually paid close attention to it before but the little creature most definitely suffers the most out of all the animals in terms of pre-death experience. It's completely removed from the VIPCO edition but thankfully there's no continuity issues because the death takes place in one cut without any soundtrack. So assuming it is cut the same way as VIPCO did it all should be fine :)

I really didn't think I was 'dredging' anything up, merely commenting on the animal violence, which relates directly to the recent BBFC advice regarding the film. But, I apologise anyway. For what, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm apologising anyway.

My point really was this: I don't like films like Faces of Death and that ilk, I really don't like the subject matter at all, so I avoid it. At the same time, I wouldn't expect those films to be censored to make them more palatable to me. They are what they are and so I don't watch them. The same applies to Cannibal Holocaust - it is what it is, if you don't like it, don't watch it. But why should it be censored to make it more platable for you? That was my only point.

Like I say, I applaud Shameless for taking the brave step of releasing this notorious film and I am definitely interested in seeing Deodato's revised edit. Also, if the BBFC do only ask for 14 secs of cuts, then that will truly be a landmark moment.

Anyway....I'll say no more on the matter....for now. :lol:

I'm away for a few days and I miss this! This is amazing news for Shameless, this site and it's community and horror fans in general (espically in the Uk where we have only been allowed truncated prints). I doff my hat to everybody who have had a hand in this and I'm sure I'm only one of many when I say that this will be a first day of release essential purchase, although I will be doing some of my own self censorship (i.e. closing my eyes) when the animal scenes comes up as I'm too much of an animal lover to even remotely want to see them.

I wasn't looking for an apology but thank you anyway. Perhaps I phrased what I said badly. All I meant was that this exact same point (with regards to if people don't like it then they shouldn't watch the film) has been made on the other Cannibal Holocaust thread and I don't see any point in posting it again on this thread. Especially as, if I remember rightly, it's a point that does seem to get quite a few people's backs up.

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice of what people want to watch. If people want to steer clear of the film altogether in protest of the animal cruelty then that's up to them. If people want to watch the film fully uncut, that's their choice. And if people want to experience the film without the animal cruelty then that's no one's business but their own. (I personally have an uncut version but I fast forward or shut my eyes through the animal scenes.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the film should be cut to cater for their tastes, but the fact is that this new edit shall be in existence soon so why shouldn't the people who do want an animal-cruelty-free version be happy about that? After all, as many keep saying, the fully uncut version is easy enough to get hold of for those who want that.

Basically, I'm all for everyone having their own opinion and not being penalised for it. And for everyone to enjoy the film in the way they want to enjoy it.

Although preferably not while munching on a turtle sandwich...

That would be wrong...

Finally..Thank you!

It's okay, Sarah, I do understand. It's a tricky job to keep everything orderly and on-topic so that people can find what they want quickly and easily. It's easy for wires to get crossed or for people to take things the wrong way.

I am very curious at this turnaround in attitudes at the BBFC though. Has anything changed there recently? New examiners? New administration?

I don't know... But what ever they're on, I want some of it!

;)

I do wonder if the complaints received about proposed cuts to Inferno and Deep Red have altered their position somewhat. By that I mean that they always state that they go with public attitudes and opinions, maybe they feel that attitudes towards these old films have changed significantly enough for them to alter their stance and reinterpret the Cinematograph Act. Purely speculative, of course, but it does make you wonder.

BBFC = Big Bags of Fine Cannabis.

I'll get my coat on the way out......

Well! Techinically I don't think they're obliged to cut DVDs under that act, it only applies to movies at the cinema. But they do apply it to DVDs under their guidelines... Not so sure how they do it now after this! :)

I wrote to them a while ago asking why they apply the act to DVDs, BDs and other formats designed for home viewing and they replied that the Video Recordings Act (1984) makes the Cinematograph Act (Animals) applicable to those as well as films for public display.

That's interesting - I didn't know that! So a newer law makes the older law applicable to something it didn't (or couldn't) apply to in the first place?

Talk about retrospective continuity! ;)

At the time of the Video Recordings Act, the BBFC sought advice from the Home Office regarding the Cinematograph Act and were told that this Act should also be applied to home video.

Having recently revisted the uncut version of Cannibal Holocaust the muskrat scene is still hard to watch but the turtle scene I still had to fast forward through!:shocked:

Well this is pretty astonishing news and totally unexpected.

Having never seen the movie ( :eek: ) but know of its content and powerful reputation, I'll certainly be buying the BD of this. I won't miss the cut 14 seconds.

Arrow and Shameless are submitting films to the BBFC that, up until recently, would have had little or no chance of getting through ( Caligula, Island Of Death etc ).

Long may it continue!