#411
| |||
| |||
I can see both sides of this one. As much as I despise the animal killings in Cannibal Holocaust (as well as the film itself) I can see the other argument anti-censorwise. I think it was 42ndStreetFreak who said that cutting the film wouldn't bring back the animals concerned (alas), and therefore banning it or passing it uncut are really the only two logical options. He's absolutely bang on there, and that's why I feel conflicted when it comes to edits like these. |
#412
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
Banning it is a whole other kettle of fish as yes doing so will not undo the harm so I think it should be left to the viewer. Like the grindhouse release of CH with animal cruelty free version. |
#413
| ||||
| ||||
I'm totally against cruelty to animals, but as others have said, cutting such scenes won't repair any damage. I also think that with a film like Cannibal Holocaust there is only 2 logical options - an outright ban or passed intact. The problem with a film like Holocaust is that the animal violence is a part of the fabric of the film. It is what it is. Cutting it is pointless and serves no real purpose. See it uncut or not at all IMO. The animal violence is ugly and repellant, but it is part of what makes Holocaust such a ferociously contentious work. remove that and you're emasculating Deodato's point, really. For better or for worse, what's done is done. Deodato does seem genuinely repentant these days though - unlike *cough*Martino*cough* who still insists he did nothing wrong. It's a tricky one. And whilst I dislike animal cruelty I think the BBFC do the history of cinema a huge disservice by removing all evidence of it. The only reason we know that animals are treated humanely today is because we know how badly they were treated in the past. As for equating it with child abuse, I disagree. Whilst it's not illegal to swiftly kill an animal, it's most certainly against the law to kill a child under any circumstances. Even the law recognises that violence to a child is far more serious than violence toward an animal, whatever your own personal view might be.
__________________ Sent from my Hoover using the power of Uri Gellar |
#414
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
I never thought that anyone would harm a child for real just for a movie. |
#415
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
As a non UK citizen, this is an odd but nonetheless fascinating debate to follow for me, but it actually is that "tampering with cinematic history" angle which I have sometimes wondered about myself when watching an "animal cruelty free" version on an "edited for the UK" R2 DVD of some title made over 30+ years ago. Sometimes I appreciate an edit missing such bits- at the same time I know the likes of "Last Cannibal World" etc contain those controversial scenes in unedited form, so allowing just a "clean" version is basically kidding the audience about the true nature of the movie in question. |
#416
| ||||
| ||||
Quote:
There's also the story about Sweet Sweetbacks Baaaaaadass Song, in which Melvin (van Peebles) made Mario have sex on screen when he was 12 or 13? |
#417
| |||
| |||
Yeah...we've had this before. if you care so much about the animals being killed, you still wouldn't watch a version of the film with the evidence of said killing simply removed surely? If you dislike it that much, never see the film. That's groovy. Anything else is bullshit. Horse falls are a strange thing though. The BBFC just cut out anything that does not have a 'certificate of non-hurty' no matter how much the makers insist that no horses were hurt. Supposedly John Woo insists no horses were hurt, but the BBFC think different. Same with "Conan" which is a REAL FARCE. The bad cuts to the horse falls are all there, and yet the same footage is shown intact in the documentary on the same disc with the makers saying no horse was hurt! And some of those horse cuts are ****ing damaging all to hell. Some you can't tell at all (like in "Walker") but often they can make a real mess of key scenes. |
#418
| |||
| |||
Quote:
Seems wacky Daddy Peebles lied about his son's age and so no cuts were made (hold on to those VHS copies guys!) but for the DVD they found out the truth and so the scene was cut. Also of interest is the butchered UK versions of the excellent (Jamie Gillis RIP) "Through the Looking Glass" has removed all the more dubious (though never hardcore) scenes of the young girl actress in it and the sleeve has been crudely censored with a black marker to remove the tittilating blurb about her age (16 I think). |
#419
| |||
| |||
The child scene in In The Realm Of The Senses is optically zoomed in the UK (and quite a few other) DVD's. The recent BFI showing removed the scene completely, as did the version Ferman prepared for cinema club showings, which personally I prefer. It's placed oddly in the film and doesn't have any bearing on the story whatsoever, so cutting it completely is an improvement. Quote:
Interestingly Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid is intact, though the accompanying Making Of documentary is cut to remove the rehearsal shot of a horse being tripped with a wire. Presumably the film will be cut next time it's submitted to remove the finished shot (though logically TCF have no reason to resubmit it anyway). The 'underwater rat' scene in The Abyss is also cut in the UK, despite James cameron's assurance on the DVD commentary that the rat(s) remained unharmed. |
#420
| ||||
| ||||
Ah right. Its still a bit dodgy having just read up on In the Realm of the Senses. They say a boys penis was pulled as punishment in the movie, but even tho that dont sound sexual its still a bit werid. Wasnt it proved that one of the male actors in Salo was 17 or 16 during filming of the movie and he had to be nude. |
Like this? Share it using the links below! |
| |