It doesn't change my opinion of the film's animal killings, they're still utterly repellent.Why just cut the muskrat scene though? Is it because the BBFC viewed it as a senseless and prolonged killing?

Pretty much. The other animals were all eaten afterwards by the cast, crew and locals whereas Deodato himself told the BBFC that the muskrat was just killed for the sake of it. It's also that that killing is prolonged, whereas the other deaths are "quick."

The BBFC obviously think of Cannibal Holocaust as some kind of documentary now - because of Deodato's clarifications nearly all the scenes are now animal slaughter instead of animal cruelty.

You can't blame the BBFC for that as nobody would think about censoring a documentary about a slaughterhouse; basically, it would be the same: animals get filmed while being killed and are eaten afterwards. So much for butcher's shops and CH. ;)

Maybe the BBFC are becoming even more liberal. Just think of it: shooting a film nowadays, documentary-style, the topic being maneaters. A member of the real film crew gets his head chopped off and this footage can be found in the final film. The BBFC say: it's alright with us, the director assured as that both head and body got eaten afterwards by the cannibals. :pound:

Greetings!

PS: If you ask me, the muskrat ain't no muskrat but a coati. Just to set the record straight. Poor animal anyhow.:coolblue:

PPS: To add something to the basic topic - I was surprised by the BBFC's decision. CH is one of the few movies I'd really call a video nasty. Not for particular scenes, but for the movie's general tone and the accumulation of violence towards both animals and humans. Making it available for the general public - well, one should think that such rough and violent societies like ours should be able to handle such movies. But a person skimming the shelves, buying it by accident and watching it as somebody used to "normal" horror flicks - I'm not so sure about that scenario... :(
I suggest a big red label stating "The Former Video Nasty - Beware! It's Still As Nasty As It Ever Was! Make Sure You Have The Guts!" ;)

How do you think the BBFC would view the animal killings in Cannibal Ferox now? As that poor little animal tied to the stake for the anaconda to attack in Ferox is horrendous imo.

All along I didn't mind that there was animal cruelty. I don't undertand why everybody is so bothered. In slaughterhouses 1000s of animals die, suffer etc. When one man (Ruggero Deodato) puts this into a film 1000s of people are disgusted, saying why not kill Deodato. Frankly I don't really care about the deaths of a few animals, especially since they were dead within mere seconds.

I disagree. There is a slight difference, as in slaughterhouses the main purpose is to produce food; that's why the animals are killed there. In films like CH they got killed because the director (or anybody else) wanted it to be in the movie - the fact that they have been eaten afterwards and not been suffering for too long in most case does not extinguish the fact that they died for the movie in the first place. I personally feel a little uncomfortable when I think of that. :coolblue:

But I can't see any purpose in banning old movies because of such scenes - the animals won't come back to life again. Let's just hope that every single animal killed in a movie in the future will be nothing else but CGI!

Greetings!

i don't care that the animals died i just find it disgusting to watch and a cheap shock tactic. to me it's like filming a close up of someone's anus having a shit and putting it in a horror film. yes it's disgusting to look at, yes it's a simple fact of life, but do i want to look at it while watching a horror film? no thank you. i would just as soon watch a version of CH without the animal death, for me it adds nothing to the film, in fact it detracts for me when people do this. same like gasper noe's carne, i love it but i could really do without seeing the horse get it's head cut off at the beginning.
the bbfc decision has no effect on how i feel about it, but i am very pleased with their decision. despite my own feelings on seeing this kind of thing i completely understand why many want to see the film in it's complete version, and if it was up to me i'd say yes leave all the animal violence in there, because for better of worse that's the film, end of. the really awesome thing here is that shameless will be giving us two versions, so everybody's happy! (except of course those who are still mad about the 15 seconds that has been cut.)
i hope this is indicative of further progress being made by the bbfc, and it will be very interesting to see what they make of house on the edge of the park. they still seem capable of ridiculous decisions, their refusal to grant an uncut new york ripper after all this time being one of the stupidest, so i guess it could still go either way. fingers crossed :)

thanks for the Carne spoiler there chief btw....

how on earth is that a spoiler? it's the very first scene of the film and has almost nothing to do with anything apart from telling you this is a film about meat and a horse butcher.
if i said irreversible begins with two guys in a jail talking would that also be a spoiler?
go watch carne if it means so much to you, it's been out long enough.

hmm, after just recently watching I Stand Alone i was intrigued to hear that it was based on a short he'd done previously which is Carne i believe? sorry if im not totally up to date with EVERYTHING, have only had access to internet/paypal for these last 2 years, so have been trying to catch up on things ive always wanted to see, and have come across various other films as a matter of course. good enough??