BBFC Problem Films

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Gojirosan

What's the deal with the cat eating the mouse in Inferno? That's what cats do...David Attenborough's lot show footage like that and it wins awards!

I have never understood the reasoning behind that cut.

Documentary footage of animals attacking and eating other animals is not prohibited by law. The BBFC though are not allowed to pass similar footage in films where it appears the scene was set up/orchestrated by the film makers. The cat/mouse scene in Inferno may seem harmless enough but the BBFC will want to know where the film makers got the footage from (it appears to be on the Inferno set) and how it was achieved. Seems no doubt to me that the mouse was put there for the cat to attack.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by vincenzo

After some years of experience with the BBFC's reasoning - no it wouldn't.

I'd love to see this one day. Presumably the film wouldn't be rejected though just cut.

By the way I saw the director's Schramm recently. This should pass without cuts now.

[Gojirosan]

Originally Posted by Angel

Documentary footage of animals attacking and eating other animals is not prohibited by law. The BBFC though are not allowed to pass similar footage in films where it appears the scene was set up/orchestrated by the film makers. The cat/mouse scene in Inferno may seem harmless enough but the BBFC will want to know where the film makers got the footage from (it appears to be on the Inferno set) and how it was achieved. Seems no doubt to me that the mouse was put there for the cat to attack.

Though the film-makers have claimed that the cat just found the mouse in the studio and did what cats do. So they filmed it to add to the surreal, tense atmosphere of that scene.

So, no benefit of the doubt for film-makers?

Whatever the case, it strikes me that this system is preposterous and essentially unworkable. Time to update the act, I think.

[Philleh]

Originally Posted by Angel

Documentary footage of animals attacking and eating other animals is not prohibited by law. The BBFC though are not allowed to pass similar footage in films where it appears the scene was set up/orchestrated by the film makers. The cat/mouse scene in Inferno may seem harmless enough but the BBFC will want to know where the film makers got the footage from (it appears to be on the Inferno set) and how it was achieved. Seems no doubt to me that the mouse was put there for the cat to attack.

Yet they have no issue with the Lizard eating a butterfly in Trauma.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Philleh

Yet they have no issue with the Lizard eating a butterfly in Trauma.

Butterflies, moths, ants, flies etc are not covered by the act.

[vincenzo]

I doubt they'd reject Nekromantik either though it would definitely suffer cuts.

I'd like to see Inferno submitted today as I'm fairly confident they'd pass it now. The additional video cut (the cat hitting the chair) would almost certainly be waived as it's obviously a dummy cat. It might be quite a while before the BBFC relax their 'fighting animals' policy though.

[Philleh]

Originally Posted by Angel

Butterflies, moths, ants, flies etc are not covered by the act.

Yet another reason why they make no, to little, sense. If you're protecting the rights of creatures of all variances then they should cover insects too - double standard BBFC!!

[vincenzo]

I still haven't quite recovered from Varan The Unbelievable being blown up.

[Daemonia]

Personally, I think it's a ridiculous position for the Government (and the Law) to take. Surely the focus should be on preventing such techniques to be used today - but older films, where it's already a done deal, why cut it? I don't see the BBFC taking a stern line on grazing horses suddenly forced to become workhorses (pulling stagecoaches and the like) which, I'm led to believe, is equally as abusive and cruel to the animal as any other mistreatment that might befall them. Yet the BBFC leave this cruel treatment intact in all westerns. Issue the film with a warning, by all means, but cutting it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it didn't happen. It doesn't alter a damn thing and only serves to propagate the myth that these were 'great' film directors whilst conveniently hiding their misdeeds from our sensitive eyes.

And please, don't think I condone animal cruelty, I don't.

[Angel]

Originally Posted by Philleh

Yet another reason why they make no, to little, sense. If you're protecting the rights of creatures of all variances then they should cover insects too - double standard BBFC!!

BBFC:
For the purposes of this legislation (animals act 1937) and The Animal Welfare Act 2006, only vertebrates which are domesticated or otherwise under the control of man are defined as ‘animals.