Actually, you raise an interesting point. Many a film that was subjected to BBFC cuts (usually major studio product) became the standard release for the entire of Europe. So the BBFC were inflicting their pointless cuts on an entire continent. ;)

That was one of those moments where you look at the screen and and think "oh no, I didn't just type that, did I?" But the idea does seem quite funny with hindsight.

It would be interesting if other classification/censorship boards took their lead from the BBFC as different countries tend to have issues with different things. The US, for example, seems to be fine with gun violence that is really hot on sex/nudity whereas European countries and the other way round, not minding sex in films but clamping down quite hard on violence.

The BBFC only seems to award issued certificates to films with sexual violence (rape, for example) and scenes of prolonged torture and violence, as in the previously mentioned Saw 6.

In the case of Inferno, they will have to look at it through a parliamentary act which is now over 70 years old. If the system is changing, and I think a little tweaking wouldn't go amiss, then perhaps the Animals Act could be re-examined. I don't want animals to be mistreated in the course of making a movie, but there needs to be consistency so they treat old movies in the same way they treat new films.

In Ferman's own mind he thought he was a Corman. And a Hitchcock. And a Welles. And a Capra. And a Ford...... :D

You were almost right. :lol:

HA!

:laugh:

Okay - so what does the Act say? That films can't portray scenes of animal cruelty or that it is forbidden for UK filmmakers to employ such techniques? Surely if a film is submitted that contains animal cruelty then the crime has already been committed - IF it's a film by a UK filmmaker and filmed in the UK. If not - then has an actual crime been committed? Like, for instance, in Oldboy when the main character eats a live squid it was filmed in a country where that's obviously not an offence. So the BBFC passed it uncut.

What I'm trying to say is that the BBFC are trying to shut the gate after the horse has bolted. If the BBFC say (as they did in their email to me) that a country's differing standards are taken into account, like the issue of gay relationships, then why isn't this true of animal footage?

I'm going to go and read the Cinematograph Act and I'll report back.

I went and had a read. Okay, so the Act makes it illegal to exhibit (important word, that) any work that included in its making any distress or cruelty to animals. The Act is quite explicit in its reference to 'exhibited works' where the film is being shown publicly. So....does that make it applicable to home video then, where it's not for public exhibition, but expressly for private viewing...?

The Act also implies that the film cannot be shown in any form (not even in a cut form). If any animal was harmed in the making of the film, the film cannot be legally exhibited. That's how it's worded, anyway.

Interesting reading there, with the second quote certainly the more important of the two as it makes any film that depicts animal suffering illegal to distribute.

If I remember correctly, the squid eating scene in Oldboy wasn't covered by the act because a squid is an invertebrate and is therefore not an animal! It is therefore okay to mistreat a squid, worm or slug in a film as they aren't "animals".

The saying goes that the law is an ass but we must remember that an ass is also an animal!

Ha! Yes, an ass is for life, not just for Christmas. :lol:

It is interesting reading, as it hints at the fact that if animals were mistreated in the course of producing the film that the film cannot be shown in any form (presumably so as not to provide any financial gain for the filmmakers or to show any condoning of their filmmaking techniques). It doesn't state that such scenes should be cut, it says the film shouldn't be exhibited at all.

It's also interesting that this Act only governs theatrical exhibitions of such works, which means that the BBFC are NOT required by law to cut such material from home video releases (unless there's something in the VRA covering this).

If the act wasn't completely covered by the BBFC there would have been legal challenges from every distributor & filmmaker every time a film was cut under the Animals Act. However there haven't been.

In fact the only director who withdrew his film from UK video release was John Milius over the requested cuts to the video of The Wind And The Lion. Strangely he didn't protest or take legal proceedings over the cuts to Conan The Barbarian (most of which were initially also to horsefalls).