Censorship

[Angel]

I can't see the Act ever being amended.

Fortunately the act doesn't require the BBFC to remove all cruelty including quick kills.

[vincenzo]

I can't see it being amended either. However it's absurd that films such as the two 'oldies' mentioned above (among many other equally old films) were passed uncut not only for cinema but for video release too, yet fall foul of the act today.

I can understand why the BBFC has to cut such footage under current regulations, though I do find it incomprehensible & contradictory at times.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

I can't see it being amended either. However it's absurd that films such as the two 'oldies' mentioned above (among many other equally old films) were passed uncut not only for cinema but for video release too, yet fall foul of the act today.

I can understand why the BBFC has to cut such footage under current regulations, though I do find it incomprehensible & contradictory at times.

The fault lies with the BBFC, Vince, who have clearly made a number of mistakes in the past, passing scenes that should have been cut. It's not a case that the scenes fell foul of the Act today, they have always been in breach of the Act. But it's up to the BBFC examiners to spot theses scenes, which they have ocassionally been failing to do in years gone by. There must have been hundereds of examiners at the BBFC over the past 80/90 years. Personally I think it's inevitable that you will get examiners who are not up to the job. And there's no doubt that there will be "cruelty" getting passed even today that will be cut in 10 years time.

I did ask the BBFC why it is they cut some recent John Wayne films which they had previously passed uncut. Now surprise, surprise they chose not to reply to me, making it obvious what the reason was. They don't like to admit to making mistakes.

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

In other words an animal can be killed in front of the camera (albeit quickly) but not treated cruelly, which I find incomprehensible at times.

Strange as it sounds, under UK law, it's not illagal to kill an animal (otherwise all farmers would be breaking the law daily!) - but it is illegal to mistreat an animal. So I guess this is why the BBFC can pass some things but not others. However, there's still some swift kills in the cannibal films which the BBFC would and do cut. So I'm not entirely sure how the BBFC discriminate or what criteria they use to judge whether cruelty has taken place, except when cruelty is visibly evident. It's also baffling why the BBFC continue to pass the final scenes in Apocalypse Now where the animal is clearly suffering a great deal, which is surely contrary to law, even if it was filmed in another country (and so were the cannibal flicks). I guess that's a question only the BBFC themselves can answer - even though you'll probably only get a very wordy response that doesn't really tell you anything!

But, saying all that, it shows that the BBFC have matured somewhat in that these days we're only really discussing BBFC cuts in the context of a legal obligation, rather than just cutting for the sake of cutting a la Ferman. I agree with Gojirosan though, the BBFC is an outmoded institution - it should have been scrapped at the same as the Lord Chamberlain's Office that governed propriety in theatre productions.

[vincenzo]

Animal killings were also passed in Maitresse (a genuinely unpleasant scene) and Salon Kitty. Neither of these were particularly quick kills. The killing of the cow in The Hunting Party would almost certainly be passed today, despite being both previously cut and staged for the film.

The animal killings in Walkabout have also never been cut, despite the horrific scene where Gulpilil painfully wounds the kangaroo before killing it. Incidentally this is one of the few times I disagree with the BBFC in terms of certification.

Originally Posted by Angel

It's not a case that the scenes fell foul of the Act today, they have always been in breach of the Act.

They must have missed the punching of the horse completely in Conan The Destroyer. It was left intact for cinema & video and not cut until 2004 for DVD.

According to the BBFC the killing of the chicken in Pink Flamingos was in breach of the Act in 1990, 1997 and 1999. By the time 2008 came along it was no longer in breach of it - or was it 'fowl' play?

[Angel]

I don't think it was ever in breach of the act, Vince, if it was they wouldn't be able to waive the cut. The BBFC in the past have been all over the place with their animal cruelty policy, cutting scenes they shouldn't have and repeatedly passing scenes they should have cut. I think things are much better now but mistakes will still be made from time to time no doubt.

[Vampix]

I remember Sky Movies used to regularly show Inferno fully uncut some years back, I taped it back then.I have the ABUS DVD now, complete with the cat chomping on the unfortunate mouse! I'm not sure whether I'd buy it again, uncut or not, as I'm not a massive fan of the film.Talking of genuine animal killings left intact in certain movies released in the UK, wasn't there a real snake killed in the UK DVD of the original Friday the 13th? How comes the BBFC let that scene slip by?

[vincenzo]

Originally Posted by Vampix

wasn't there a real snake killed in the UK DVD of the original Friday the 13th? How comes the BBFC let that scene slip by?

Presumably due to it being deemed a quick kill. A snake was also killed in Bloody Moon, which was cut in the Vipco DVD but waived for the Severin release. Ditto for Blood Of Fu Manchu which has another formerly cut snake-killing scene now restored.

Judging by the recent Red Pony cut I'm less optimistic that Inferno will pass unscathed.

[Stephen@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

incomprehensible & contradictory

That's the BBFC in a nutshell!

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Even so, it's a vastly superior classification body than the MPAA.