Censorship

[Rik]

I believe we should have the right to watch films as the director intended, regardless of content

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

The question was about historical animal violence in film and if we should show it or not.

If you'd just said that in the first place it would have saved posters much time and typing.

Especially yourself.

Yes we should show historical animal violence in films, for better or worse they are part of the film and the history of film.

Although in today's CGI dominated world we have no need to repeat those failings.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

I also agree we should show historical animal related violence in films, as to gloss over it would be to pretend it never happened. We as a species more than any other need to look to the past in order to learn from our mistakes not censor them.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Rik

I believe we should have the right to watch films as the director intended, regardless of content

I'm of the same opinion but, as Ruggero Deodato has said about Last Cannibal World, the animal violence was filmed and inserted by the producer, not him, so in that situation the waters are extremely muddy.

In terms of films being made in, for example, China with horse falls (The Good, the Bad and the Weird springs to mind), I don't want to condone that unnecessary animal cruelty by going out of my way to get the uncut version.

[platostotal]

I really enjoyed reading thru this thread, but I think censorship has a more basic use by those in power, now if I say that humans are pretty stupid compared what their brains could achieve, and 'dumbing down' is a very powerful weapon against a population that starts to question what they're being told or in some cases ordered to do, censorship comes in very handy indeed.

Lets say that mobile phones give you brain tumors or the public water you drink gives you cancer, that information will be censored until there is no choice but to release it(even tho it was known to have a strong basis in truth) because of the effect it will have on public order.

There is a clause in the Health and Safety act that implies that if you suffer because of a breech in the act you may be stopped from taking action if it effects the 'National interest' in other words censoring your rights if it has a negative cost on public morale(or makes those in power look corrupt or incompetent)

Now on to the BBFC, if all they had to was slap a certification on a film, they would have virtually no power(most film makers would know where their film would fall) so we maybe would have a R18 for normal porn and say a V18 for violent horror that goes beyond an 18 and SV18 for sexually violent material(that could only be sold in registered outlets) , so no need to cut any legal action at all(if society decides something is illegal and a criminal offense then you can't expect to film it as entertainment and sell it for profit) but those in power would lose the power to control what you see if you were over 18, and until you can make a decision based on uncensored raw untampered facts you could argue the freedom is a moot point as you are only free to believe what those in power want you to.

(Why should Boo be have all the rants...)

[Boo Radley]

YEAH!!! Rage against the machine, dude!!

[Demoncrat]

Watched Patrick (1978) recently. Still amazed to see a frog being killed in this btw, and when it was shown on BBC1 a while back intact was this scene.



Isn't this animal cruelty too??

[Make Them Die Slowly]

Originally Posted by Demoncrat

Watched Patrick (1978) recently. Still amazed to see a frog being killed in this btw, and when it was shown on BBC1 a while back intact was this scene.



Isn't this animal cruelty too??

There seems to be some weird scale as what is okay to kill and show. Slimy and creepy and crawly are okay to butcher but exotic or anything with forward looking eyes are a no no. It is a total double standard. Dead is dead at the end of the day but humans value some animals lives over others in the cinematic world of animal snuff.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

anything with forward looking eyes are a no no.

Does that mean Ron's fair game?

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly

There seems to be some weird scale as what is okay to kill and show. Slimy and creepy and crawly are okay to butcher but exotic or anything with forward looking eyes are a no no. It is a total double standard. Dead is dead at the end of the day but humans value some animals lives over others in the cinematic world of animal snuff.

It is unfortunate – and a little weird – that it seems okay to kill invertebrates, but animals with spines are fair game.