BBFC Problem Films - Page 15

eiren · #**141** 28th April 2009, 12:34 PM

I don't see the problem with it. Regardless of whether the BBFC cuts them, film makers still use them. They're not allowed to use them in film making in this country. So why bother censoring them?

If people don't want to see them, they should be informed they are in the film so they can make an informed choice not to see them e.g. in the classification 'this film contains real horse falls'.

As such, it was the directors intent to have them in. I want to see the film as the director intended.

I can't understand why it's not legitimate entertainment in a film, yet it's a national event to have an extremely tough race course for the Grand National where it's not uncommon for horses to fall on the jumps and have to be put down... which apparently is entertainment for all on the BBC.

Pete · #**142** 28th April 2009, 12:39 PM

I understand your point regarding the Grand National but the horses in that dont have wires attached to their legs to deliberately make them fall over.
And besides i can live with 6 or so seconds of cuts as they are normally not a part of the story.

eiren · #**143** 28th April 2009, 12:46 PM

I disagree with that. To me the film is more than just the plot... it's also all the visual elements and atmosphere.

The horse falls are to illustrate the brutality that can go on during these battles, and as such they were put in for visual impact.

You could say that horror films don't actually need the gore in them because that doesn't add to the story.

Where's the fun in that though?

When it comes to films, censorship is NEVER a good thing. The BBFC should, in my eyes, advise people as to the content of the films and let them make the decision whether or not that is something they would like to see or not. They should never take it upon themselves to dictate to people what is and what is not suitable for people to watch (legality aside).

Pete · #**144** 28th April 2009, 12:52 PM

Cutting a horsefall does not compare to removing the gore from a horror film. Most horror films rely on gore over plot. Whereas a horsefall only lasts a few seconds and add nothing to the film.

Anyway trained horses could be used for the same effect.

eiren · #**145** 28th April 2009, 01:01 PM

Again, I don't agree. Both are visceral elements to a film to add impact to what's occurring on the screen.

Gore that's removed is often a second or two in length.

Don't get me wrong, I think tripping horses is cruel... but I see absolutely no benefit in censoring them.

If you want to stop it... then you need to stop the film makers from doing it in the first place. The only way you'd do that is by refusing to release the film in total.

Pete · #**146** 28th April 2009, 01:13 PM

Well have to agree to disagree.

I have seen many westerns / adventure etc movies that have horse trips and not one of them have heightened the impact. And besides one the reasons the bbfc started cut them was because of the publics concern for the animals wellfare.

Angel · #**147** 30th April 2009, 06:36 PM

Pete · #**148** 30th April 2009, 07:44 PM

i hate censorship for adults, but i am in favour of protecting kids. I dont have any of my own but i have two nieces who i love and i wouldnt like them seeing Cannibal Holocaust.

Angel · #**149** 1st May 2009, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoochJD

HI,

For films made after 1980, there should be no reason to have a real animal actually being harmed for a film,...

But, having said this, I have no problem with old films containing animal cruelty, as there was no regualtion of the treatment of animals in the entertainment industry. Hence, the animal killings in films like CANNIBAL FEROX or CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST whilst morally indefensible, are unfortunately, indicative of the time when they were made. Censoring them, won't stop the animals dying, nor will people suddenly think that these animals weren't ever killed in the first place for the films.

Pooch

So there are regulations in the entertainment industry today that prevents these films being made which include cruelty to animals? Never heard of that outside of the US and UK. I can't see what would prevent them from making these films again if they want to apart from public disgust.

Censoring cruelty today won't stop the animals from dying either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PoochJD

Yet, with modern movie-making, no animal should need to be seen in distress, discomfort or dying, for entertainment purposes. Hence, I - unfortunately - have to say I agree with the BBFC censoring animal mistreatement in modern-day films from the past 20 years or so.

Pooch

Unfortunately as you know the BBFC have to cut animal cruelty, no matter how old the film is. The animals act is retrospective. It's not really the BBFC at fault it's the animals act itself.

Then again I do agree with the cutting of animal cruelty so I'm not complaining

eiren · #**150** 1st May 2009, 07:59 AM

Haha good call. I've got all the UROTSUKIDOJI films imported. I can see why they would be rejected or cut heavily.