Has the BBFC decision changed your opinion of Cannibal Holocaust?
 

With the BBFC only requesting 15 secs of cuts, will this change your view of the film? The approval of a certificate to this version of the film, only missing the killing of the muskrat, means that the rest of the film doesn't contravene any UK laws and, more importantly, says that there was no cruelty to the animals.

So what do you think - have the BBFC lost their marbles or is there now going to be a wider accepting of the idea that, although animals are killed, no cruelty was employed? Are you more inclined to watch the rough stuff in light of the recent ruling of the BBFC or do you still think the animal footage is unacceptable?

Let's hear your thoughts!

(and can a Mod correct my spelling in the thread title, please? LOL! Thanks.)

Im 50/50

On 1 hand i'm glad they have passed it almost uncut because the UK was always the country left behind with this film and it gets to be seen by a wider audience of horror lovers (the chav's who buy crap from HMV) and hopefully it might bring Deodato more (belated) fame so i'm all for it.

But on the other hand I will still see it as a video nasty and I still think the animal cruelty will be hard to watch and i'm sure papers etc will kick up a storm again and try to ban it again.

Overall I think the BBFC have made a hard choice and let's see what backlash the film will get again

But....the BBFC have concluded that the scenes of animal death in the movie contained no cruelty. So can we still class that footage in this film as 'animal cruelty', when clearly it's not? Well, not according to the BBFC, anyway. If it was cruel, they'd be bound by law to cut it.

That's a hard 1 really, the BBFC don't see it as animal cruelty hence why most of it is uncut yet other people that just buy the film in general without hearing about it (as it was a vid nasty) will think it is animal cruelty so the general public will be split.

I see it as animal cruelty because they are inflicting some pain on animals - pig, muskat but others they kill out right hence that isn't because they need to survive and they eat it. So i'm sat on the fence but I think others (general public and especially news papers) will see it as animal cruelty and it wouldn't matter how polite the BBFC word it

The BBFC now call it 'animal slaughter' which isn't illegal, it is a different view from what they said 10 years ago (cuts were required to scenes involving real animal cruelty and eroticised sexual violence is how they put it back in 2001). I think some of the right wing press and one or two 'honourable' members of parliament may complain. I think the current government has too much on its plate to worry about a 30year old film, but on the other hand the VRA was introduced as scapegoat around the time of the mess the Thatcher government made in the 80's, to deflect the publics attention so who knows

From a censorship point of view, I think it is a step forward. I believe anyone over the age of 18 - and therefore an adult - should have the right to watch whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land, in this case cruelty to animals (as far as the 'sexual violance' goes, imho you can see much more disturbing things in perfectly legal p*rn readily available just a click of a mouse button away*).

Now, personally, it still doesn't change the fact that I do not wish to see animals being killed, humanely or otherwise. Sorry, but that's just me. I just don't find it entertaining. I Just won't be able to ignore the fact that that is a fellow sentiant beings life ending; it's the same reason I don't want to watch videos of beheadings and suicides on the 'net (although I know a few people who do). Maybe I'm being over sensitive, but hey, that's just me :) . I'll be quite happy to have an option to watch without the animal killings, but otherwise uncut. As far as the BBFC is concerned, well they have been showing animals being killed on TV 'reality' shows for years. I watched one of those 'survivor' type shows years ago and they were quite merrily lopping the heads of chickens, and I don't remember anyone kicking up a stink about then, no matter how repellent I thought it was.

*People tell me.

ps

Ive always fast forwarded through the turtle scene, the other i find disturbing (although not real) is the abortion.....yuk

Corrected! ;)

I'm gonna say let's take it while we can.

When you look at the clowns that are in charge of the country just now,who need to get back in the 'popular' stakes,and could appeal to the 'moral do-gooders' crowd to do so,then I say bring it on while the going is good.

By the way,in Scotland,a clegg is a blood-sucking beastie which gives you a nasty bite,and leaves a filthy mark......:pound:

I doubt that anyone will think no animals were harmed cause BBFC didnt think so.

I for one still think what deadato did was cruel and not needed and nothing will change my views on that.

I don't understand how any decisions made by the BBFC could change my opinions of Cannibal Holocaust.

It can certainly change my opinions of the BBFC, but not of any film they have classified.

Cannibal Holocaust is, and always was, a technical masterpiece. I've always had a great deal of respect for Deodato's work.

The BBFC on the other hand.....

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??

it's not based on it, i stand alone is a direct sequel. so if you've seen i stand alone you know the guy is a butcher. i really haven't spoiled anything for you there. watch carne it's great. :)

when i get the chance.....

first saw 'holocaust' back in pre VRA days, late 83 i think, liked it then and only got an uncut version of it few years ago, can't argue that the animal scenes are anything but repugnent...but, what the film has to say is even more relevant today than 30 years ago, give it a shot when it comes out in sep. you can always ff past the turtle scene, i did that myself when i watched it few days ago, only my opinion but it may be seen as a very important genre film indeed, can't say the same about 'ferox' tho, if you find 'holocaust' too much to take best stay clear of lenzi's gore fest, but as i said 'holocaust' deserves a go.

Here is the Amazon Cannibal Holocaust Debate

Amazon.co.uk: Customer Discussions: Shameless Screen Entertainment has submitted a fully uncut version of Cannibal Holocaust to an advisory board at the BBFC who have advised them that the film would (only) have to be cut by 14 seconds!

my views on the film being cut are still not any different because I watched the screening for the re-release of Cannibal Holocaust at Cine-Excess and I noticed that even though all the other scenes have been put intact besides the muskrat scene, the turtle and monkey scenes were still censored. I was still disappointed with how the BBFC are still being difficult with the animal cruelty scenes.

Was this version not Deodato's new animal cruelty-free though? Since reading that BBC interview with him I'm a bit confused about which version was shown at Cine-Excess since I wasn't there. It was my understanding that 2 versions will be on the Shameless release - the new edit which is cruelty-free and the longer edit which has everything except for the muskrat scene. Is this still going to be the case?

That's correct, Paul. The version screened at Cine Excess was Deodato's new edit.

The Shameless release will have both versions of the film - the new edit and the long edit.

Deodato did wrong
 

wait, wait, wait, wait. so they've removed the death of the muskrat but not the tarantula machete scene? this makes no sense. i think the way the film-makers behaved (and it's pretty inarguable that animals were harmed for the purposes of Cannibal Holocaust) is quite disgraceful and it's mainly for this reason that I don't rate the film as highly as some. There are always more creative solutions to these kinds of problems. in terms of censorship and taste, well the BFI have a PG cerificate on a documentary called The Animal Film which is basically a collection of stock footage of experiments conducted on animals. it's truly awful but the fact remains that the audience are quite capable of deciding what is within their boundaries of taste. The Animal Film is designed to be informative which marks it out slightly from Cannibal Holocaust but certainly people are aware of animal cruelty, it's entirely up to them if they want to watch it. however, if it's presented as fictitious (a la Cannibal Holocaust) I think an audience should be made very aware that ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE MAKING OF THIS PICTURE because I believe the ethics of the film-makers in this instance are in all the wrong places and they should be judged accordingly.

No one forces you to buy or watch it. An 18 rated notorious video nasty is never gonna be watched by a large portion of the population, so let us sit back and enjoy Deodato' finest. The funny thing is I don't like the animal scenes myself, but I still rate it very highly indeed. But I agree that some will never find it palatable. I used to know a couple of guys involved in animal rights demo's, they would be even more assertive than you. So we'll agree to differ, whatever you do don't watch 'Ferox' you'll find that even more objectionable.

Big sorry to 'Mikeliriarte' for the above. Forgot this thread was about your opinions and not about 'Holocaust' in general. We should always express ourselves freely here. Me bad, have a like on me.

15 secs is better than nothing
 

i don't think the deleting of the animal ritual scene would detract from the re-issuing of such a cult horror film that has in the past been the victim of savage cut backs in its viewing time and now we might get to see it in all of its near complete glory

Cannibal Holocaust - Animal Killings.
 

I watched a vipco's Ghosthouse last night and there was a trailer for Cannibal Holocuast.
I felt awful when I saw the turtle being hurled out of the river. I know these films have animal killings in them. I know it has been said they are done humane in some instances and there has been a cut in others, but I can't help in feeling this is awful. Which is a shame because I really wanted to add this for my Shameless collection.
I understand animals are killed for food, I'm not a vegatrian but when it comes to seeing them killed for the sake of a films I just can't help my feelings. I once spoke to John Morgan from Cannibal Ferox about this subject and he felt the same way. I'd like to hear other people's comments about this.

This subject has been pretty much done to death (pardon the pun) and I don't think there's really much left to debate now. I know I've been debating it for well over a decade now, online, so I've nothing really new to add, save that this is what the film is. It contains animal killings - if in doubt, don't view. It's very unpleasant, but then Cannibal Holocaust is an all-round unpleasant film. But it does have a point to make.

And it also has to be borne in mind that films like this were created for 70's/early 80's audiences. Not for audiences of today, so it has to be judged on that. Discard the 21st Century mentality and understand that stuff like this was acceptable to Italian audiences back then. Let's not forget that the Mondo films from the likes of Prosperi et al were hugely popular. Mondo Cane was even Oscar-nominated for its theme song, which clearly shows it was quite a well-known and well-regarded work. These are not really all that obscure in film circles.

It may be awful but thats what cannibal holocaust is about,how f***ed up the human race is

I agree with Daemonia. It's not something I condone but it's already been committed to film and it's part of the original vision so should be left as is. In these cases it's up to the viewer as to what they want to see.

I think it will always be a subject that comes up, when a film is rereleased. I have seen the film, about sixteen years ago, but its a blur now with Cannibal Ferox. I did in the glory days work in a video store, long before blockbusters and other chains took over so I know my films and CH does have a charm to it in the cannibal genre, but maybe its the older I get that makes stuff like this less appealing and with the added animal killings, perhaps there's far more appealing horror films out there I'd rather spend money on.

Its part of the film. Removing it dilutes the director's original vision. If you can't cope with it, don't watch it.

To be honest, I'm sick of all these bleeding heart born again animal rights activists saying how appalling it is to kill animals for entertainment. No, it wouldn't happen now, but it did happen then, and then was a very different time. A time when 15 year old girls got their t*ts out on page 3 of The Sun, something else that would never happen now.

So come on people, these films were meant to be hard hitting. Accept it or avoid it, but don't change it.

That may be the case, but is it the directors vision when he claims he was forced by producers to add animal killings, and regrets it.
Secondly I find it humourous when poeple write IF IN DOUBT DO NOT VIEW. It takes me back to the vipco warnings.

I am not a bleeding heart activist. I was just asking the question of what people thought about animals being killed for the sake of a movie. I understand that some were killed humane way but still it makes me feel repulsed seeing a animal killed for the sake of a film. I accept this was a different time and culture. And I have seen the film in the past and know it makes some great social commentary whilst also coming across stupid and niave in places.

Deodato initially said that it was for Jungle Holocaust/Last Cannibal World that the producers asked for some added animal violence. As far as I know, everything Deodato wanted in Cannibal Holocaust is in there. The fact he may now well regret it or try and make excuses is irrelevant. He made the film, he shot those scenes, and put together within the context of the film they create a very visceral and powerful viewing experience that constantly asks the viewer the question 'Are you okay with this?' No film has ever had an effect on me like Cannibal Holocaust, probably the only film that has left me in a state of shock and utterly speechless after my first viewing. There's not many films that can lay claim to that.

Couldn't agree more! We've discussed every tiny bit of this question within the respective Cannibal Holocaust threads. I don't think that there's any need for a re-launch. :pray:

Greetings!