Interestingly enough, the upcoming French shocker "Martyrs" has just been DOWNGRADED from a (rare in France) "18" to a "16" rating on behalf of the minister of culture! Yes, the French still regard movie making first an foremost as art and for that they deserve some applause!:cool::woot:
I can't express in words how alien that sounds to my German ears....:ack::rofl:

Sounds like a good decision there.

Baise Moi was originally a 16 then upgraded to an 18. They're very liberal over there. I don't think they ban or cut films.

"Gutterballs" is scheduled for a July DVD release in Germany and the distributor is aiming for an "FSK" approved rating:eek:

I'll keep you posted in what condition it'll arrive on the shelves....:p

http://www.wicked-vision.com/news.php?ID=26

Wow, that's going to be interesting, Peter.

Still looking forward to a UK release.

I think this is a very good point and I have read in the past that in the 60's & 70's there was an element of that being a reason for some censorship. The powers that be didn't think people were inteligent enough to watch some films, they wouldn't be able to seperate fact & fiction.

Arthouse films do get seem to get treated differently.

Well as Men In Black said, A Person is smart, people are dumb.

That was probably true in the 60's and 70's in regards to regular violence although I can't think of any examples in regards to animal cruelty but it's unlikely to be the case today anyway. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not. A lot of people used to complain that there were double standards regarding art house/subtitled films. A lot of subtitled films have been cut recently for scenes of animal cruelty eg cockfighting being the main reason.

This is what the BBFC have to say regarding the cutting of animal cruelty

Contrary to popular belief, the Animals Act is only there to prevent the screening of scenes of deliberate cruelty inflicted on animals for the purposes of making a film. It does not prohibit scenes showing animals being killed (even if they are killed soley for the film), providing the killing is swift and humane. Furthermore, it does not seek to prevent documentary footage (even of cruelty) - it only there to prohibit scenes where a film maker has deliberately mistreated an animal for film making purposes. So, documentary footage of animals being killed (or even mistreated) is not prohibited. Furthermore, scenes showing animals being killed (even if it's specifically for the purposes of the film) are not prohibited, provided it is swift and humane. The only thing the Act prohibits is deliberate cruelty to an animal (including causing it fear and distress) simply for the purposes of creating a work of entertainment. This is why Hollywood horse trips, staged cockfights and Ruggerro Deodato cutting animals faces of with machetes in his cannibal films are cut. By contrast Apocalypse Now with its quick buffalo kill was passed.

90% of the animal scenes of Ruggero Deodato's masterpiece were swift kills.
Beheading has been proved to be the most humane way for human executions, so I imagine it would be the same for animals. ( Wikipedia on human execution methods )

Can you cause a reptile fear and distress.?

That BBFC statement contradicts itself twice.

IMO the slaughter of the ox was allowed as it had one of Hollywoods biggest names acting in the film plus it was in context with the film, and had a reputable director were as Deodato's looked upon as a exploitation director by those who dont understand him and that singles his work out for scrutiny by the censors, even though all the kills in Holocaust were in context with the film, and at least 90% were swift.

How do the BBFC know the monkey hunting scene was scripted, when Deodato says it wasn't .?

Angel, please dont see this post as getting at you or your views as it is'nt.

Perhaps Deodato lied.