SHAM031/SHAM201 - Cannibal Holocaust: The BBFC Advice & Decision

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

For what it's worth, since your post is almost entirely about Arrow, I'd just like to point out that Shameless and Arrow are two different companies.

Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

[vinncent]

Originally Posted by longtom

Greatful?
I love the way members of this forum think of Arrow/Shameless as some kind of charity.

I'm pleased they are making the effort to get these films past the censor , but having had access to uncut movies for the best part of 20 years via dvd and laserdisc I'm not going to start buying censored films now, whether its 14 seconds or 14 minutes.

I shall buy the film on Bluray when I can get it uncut , and not until.

As others have said , I'll believe the BBFC have passed the uncut version with just 14 seconds of cuts when its in the stores.

To cut the muskrat scene but not the turtle scene is plain illogical.

The current version with 6 minutes of cuts was classified in 2008

Amen!!

[hallo37]

One thing I've learned form scanning the message boards about DVD releases over the years is that a) Some labels are completly above ANY criticism and b) you can't please everyone. If you don't like a release then don't buy it - simple

[Pete]

The current version with 6 minutes of cuts was classified in 2008


Yes, becasue it was a submitted by a cheap ass company who didn't bother submitting the uncut version. The BBFC haven't seen the uncut version since 2001.

[Zaroff]

just to throw my hat into the arena, standing back, waiting for the charging bull to go all bugs bunny on me, i would say this release would be important for all film-kind.

removing animal cruelty would be much welcome by all but the sadistic..who shouldnt be allowed to own anything other than plastic cutlery. that the director himself sees the retrospective hindrance that these scenes of pain have, the film can now be seen by a wider audience. admittedly not a really wide audience but historically speaking, more than the merry few who dare import.

perhaps Ortolani soundtrack to go with it would make the UK weirdo-public see cannibal holocaust for what it is, a crafted film, a deliberately shocking & savage provocation. personally i prefer it over all this modern torture slick stuff. Deodato's flavours have gained valuable vintage notes after decanting!

[trench]

Still some confusion over the removal of the muskrat scene but not the turtle scene I see. I was going to write my own answer, but sure it's already been answered many times throughout the thread, so I thought it would be funnier to post those comments instead :

Originally Posted by longtom

Cut the muskrat but leave the turtle

Originally Posted by masdawg

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.

Originally Posted by bigandya

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.

See Mawsdawg's comments, and this :

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

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!

And this :

Originally Posted by buggenhagen

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.

And this :

Originally Posted by robertzombie

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.

Originally Posted by longtom

To cut the muskrat scene but not the turtle scene is plain illogical.

Why?

[bigandya]

Originally Posted by Zaroff

removing animal cruelty would be much welcome by all but the sadistic..who shouldnt be allowed to own anything other than plastic cutlery.

I find that remark totally insulting.

Because I prefer to watch the film as a historical document from 1980, rather than a censored article based on post-1980s criticism and reaction, I am judged by you as a sadist?

A very unfair judgement....

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Zaroff

removing animal cruelty would be much welcome by all but the sadistic..who shouldnt be allowed to own anything other than plastic cutlery.

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement as, although I dislike animal cruelty, I feel Cannibal Holocaust is altogether more powerful and disturbing watch when you see the depths the filmmakers end up sinking to in their pursuit of 'the truth'.

[Kyle]

Originally Posted by Zaroff

removing animal cruelty would be much welcome by all but the sadistic

to be fair that turtle had it coming, walking around the jungle with its shell all on show, what a slut! if i was in the jungle it would have some extra special treatment from me

[Zaroff]

Originally Posted by bigandya

I find that remark totally insulting.

Because I prefer to watch the film as a historical document from 1980, rather than a censored article based on post-1980s criticism and reaction, I am judged by you as a sadist?

A very unfair judgement....

hmm. i too prefer to watch this as historical document, or shall we say in an historical context to a certain extent, as my entire original paragraphs bear out. i stand by my suggestion that viewing such material, wether historically important or post any year at all, would still constitute a sadistic impulse given satisfaction. for analogy, i don't care if Pavlov was a charming man when he vivisected his dogs, regardless of historical relevance, the human trait of sadism is indefensible, and certainly not for purposes that have no proven benefit.

i wholeheartedly agree with fullest uncut versions and abhor censorship as a rule. however, i cannot in anyway, regardless of how lovely a tin this film comes in, defend cruelty to animals. i apologize for my strong reactions, which are not necessarily completely derived from logic. but if i saw someone harming an animal in such a way in person, i would react very strongly indeed. the film is strong enough to warrant a similar, facsimile of a reaction. and incidentally, i find film violence delightful..when it's fake. that is, as art-ifice..im not easily impressed by violent outburst.

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Sorry, but that is a ridiculous statement as, although I dislike animal cruelty, I feel Cannibal Holocaust is altogether more powerful and disturbing watch when you see the depths the filmmakers end up sinking to in their pursuit of 'the truth'.

i see. and the director himself has suggested now he could tone it down. so his art is malleable. truth is a myth, which is indeed a useful theme for the film..into a heart of darkness..question would be, who owns that piece of art?..the viewer?..cannibal holocaust is very powerful with the animal pain and suffering on display. its a very potent imagery. i've seen many versions. i like the film a great deal. i will be buying a similar styled release to the usa Grindhouse release if it occurs, which allows people to choose not to see real sadistic acts. i would gladly say a painting is difficult to alter without defacing the original intent, or any other art form. but i think many film collectors would prefer to have the choice, regardless of 'for the sake of completeness', not to view a work of art, which it certainly is, with repellent images of true animal suffering. the director thinks it can be a pliable medium, i agree. i also stand by my suggestion that cruelty of that nature is sadistic, and as such has so little merit in a work of art of that magnitude, it would not lack power. you could always choose the 'cruel' version on a menu.. if you want a powerful sense of 'completeness' or share in Deodato 'intent'..