#401
| ||||
| ||||
No urgency, just compliance with Government legislation which as mentioned is applied to DVD as a matter of policy. Unfortunately the animals act doesn't allow the BBFC to pass cruelty providing it wasn't cut before.
|
#402
| ||||
| ||||
Yes I agree with the cutting of animal cruelty just as I agree with the cutting of child abuse, necrophilia and snuff.
|
#403
| |||
| |||
My own personal views on censorship aren't exactly in line with the BBFC but I understand what they do and mostly why they do it. The old days of censorship (the Trevelyan/Murphy/Ferman years) interest me a great deal. Mainly because of the sheer madness of it at times. They were clearly working without ideas or policy, and Ferman worked to his own agenda. Incidentally I'm in line with most of the above too. |
#404
| ||||
| ||||
Yes prior to Robin Duvalls arrival the public had to suffer about 70 years of complete insanity with decisions that were totally laughable.
|
#405
| ||||
| ||||
That's an interesting way of looking at it -- we wouldn't even think about tolerating a bit of child abuse in the horror film, would we?
__________________ |
#406
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
I am sure no-one condones the genuine abuse of animals in film-making, and agree that it should be covered by law irrelevant of whether or not a film is being made. Abuse is abuse if there are cameras or not. But do you agree that it is right to cut films from yesteryear because they may (or may not it seems) fall foul of an ambiguously worded law? I think it is less clear when one considers future productions and the differing legal position over animals around the world. But I don't think the BBFC is right to cut such things. A special certificate or warning is fine, I do not think cutting is appropriate. Last edited by Gojirosan; 4th May 2010 at 06:29 PM. |
#407
| ||||
| ||||
I agree with what you're saying and that's what makes it such a difficult subject. The problem with some of these films is that they didn't follow any laws at all -- I can't imagine that the turtle that was cut up and eaten in the Cannibal Holocaust was done with the full blessing of local lawmakers! Standards do change, and things that were acceptable now aren't. It is this point that means that the BBFC, bound by the Animals Act, is applying today's standards to films made decades ago. It's a tricky issue as I don't agree with animal cruelty, but neither am I a big fan of censorship.
__________________ |
#408
| ||||
| ||||
Well I don't see what difference it makes when the films were made, cruelty is cruelty, obviously cutting animal cruelty from films made 50 years ago is not going to change what happened ie the animals aren't going to be brought back to life. The point of the legislation was to encourage films makers to use more humane methods when dealing with animals and I think it certainly had an effect on films made over here in the UK at least. Yes it's a law that I certainly agree with.
|
#409
| ||||
| ||||
Do you agree with any animal cruelty cuts? Or would you pass any film regardless of the severity of the cruelty.
|
#410
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Accidents happen, but I wouldn't want a blanket ban as what one person considers cruel another may think is perfectly normal and natural.
__________________ |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |