How many of us would buy a Blu-ray of Cannibal Ferox?

[Boo Radley]

Originally Posted by Michael Brooke

Just to clarify, it's not "the BBFC's stance", it's the criminal law - namely, the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act, which the BBFC is required to take into account by the 1984 Video Recordings Act.

So...if it's the "law" and not BBFC "opinion", how has the law changed in the last 20 odd years so that we can now see it? For years it has been banned and forbidden as it broke the law but now it's okay as it doesn't break the law.?????

No laws have changed, have they??

[Michael Brooke]

Whether or not it breaks the law is for a court to decide. The BBFC's job (a legal requirement since 1984) is to try to make sure that it doesn't.

Up until the great liberalisation of 2000, they tended to err on the side of caution when it came to the Animals Act and the Protection of Children Act (the two main pieces of content-related legislation for which context does not provide a legal defence), but since then they've been more relaxed about things like obviously clean kills.

Now whether or not that's a fair interpretation of the Animals Act is open to question (it hasn't been tested in court yet), because it's possible to argue that killing something is by definition being cruel, but the BBFC's interpretation now seems to be concerned exclusively with obviously unsimulated infliction of pain.

Hence Cannibal Holocaust mostly being OK aside from the muskrat scene (I can't imagine any interpretation of the Animals Act that would judge that to be OK!) - but it's unlikely that Cannibal Ferox would be judged quite so leniently, as the infliction of pain is rather more blatant (or careless).

[Hawkmonger]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

So...if it's the "law" and not BBFC "opinion", how has the law changed in the last 20 odd years so that we can now see it? For years it has been banned and forbidden as it broke the law but now it's okay as it doesn't break the law.?????

No laws have changed, have they??

It's still illegal. I have never seen a uncut copy passed through the BBFC of any movie depicting animal cruelty. Not then, not now.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Hawkmonger

It's still illegal. I have never seen a uncut copy passed through the BBFC of any movie depicting animal cruelty. Not then, not now.

It's all a matter of interpretation and the willingness of the distributor to appeal the BBFC's decision, taking evidence from the appropriate members of the cast and crew and arguing their case in order to see as much material is released as possible.

Also, although the laws hasn't changed, society has and always will so films which were banned or heavily cut (such as The Devils) are now available in an uncut form and others which were originally rated X or 18 now have a 15 certificate. As it is now freely available to buy in the physical form or as an electronic download, it's strange to think how Lady Chatterley's Lover, for example, was once prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act. Society changes and so do the elected (and non-elected) people who make decisions which affect large societies of the population.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

As it is now freely available to buy in the physical form or as an electronic download, it's strange to think how Lady Chatterley's Lover, for example, was once prosecuted under the Obscene Publications Act.

Albeit famously acquitted!

In fact, one of James Ferman's first acts when he took over the BBFC in 1975 was to lobby for film to be included within the remit of the Obscene Publications Act (which happened in 1977). Unlike the Animals Act or the Protection of Children Act, the OPA does include an "artistic merit" get-out clause, which has undoubtedly helped far more films get passed than would otherwise have been the case.

In the early 1970s, quite a few people (notably Mary Whitehouse) had tried to test the BBFC's authority by bringing private prosecutions of certain films, but these pretty much evaporated once the OPA was extended to cover film - since then, such prosecutions were generally mounted by the Crown Prosecution Service (as during the "video nasties" controversy of the early 1980s). The handy thing about the famous "general tendency to deprave and corrupt" test is that it's very very hard to argue convincingly to the standards demanded by a court of law - which is exactly what Ferman was banking on.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

You don't often hear Penguin Books being mentioned as championing free speech and the rights of authors and publishers to distribute artistically important literature, do you?!

I wasn't aware of Ferman's contribution (intentionally or otherwise) to allowing so-called 'obscene' films a defence against their complete censorship via prosecution and banning if the onus was on the prosecution to say they had no artistic merit. It's very hard to argue (beyond reasonable doubt) that the film has absolutely no artistic merit, even absolute dross which very few people would choose to watch, so Ferman and Whitehouse's actions were possibly counter-productive.

[Michael Brooke]

Well, Whitehouse's attempted prosecutions (most notoriously, trying to get the Curzon Mayfair prosecuted under the 1824 Vagrancy Act on the grounds that its screening of Marco Ferreri's La Grande Bouffe made it equivalent to "keeping a disorderly house" - not too surprisingly, the judge threw that one out before it came anywhere near a formal hearing) predated the extension of the OPA to cover film. And it was precisely because of legal fishing trips like this, which rose sharply in the early 70s, that Ferman thought that extending the OPA was a good idea.

The BBFC's greatest nightmare throughout its entire existence has been the prospect of a successful prosecution of a film that they've passed - because one of the absolutely fundamental reasons for the BBFC's very existence is that it's supposed to protect distributors from such things occurring. So it was very much in Ferman's interests to make this scenario much less likely - I know it's tempting to lump Ferman and Whitehouse together, but their motives were often radically different. (Whitehouse, for instance, rarely gave a monkey's about artistic merit: filth was filth).

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Fascinating stuff Michael.

Yeah,I'd buy a BD of Ferox,but I'd much rather have a BD of THE DEVILS!

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by The Reaper Man@Cult Labs

Yeah,I'd buy a BD of Ferox,but I'd much rather have a BD of THE DEVILS!

I'm the opposite, I'd much rather have a BD of Cannibal Ferox. I'm surprised that no enterprising European label hasn't put one out yet. It's a guaranteed big seller and had dozens of Euro releases on DVD, which speaks to the popularity of the title, in spite of its questionable content.

Ferox would undoubtedly fall foul of the BBFC's scissors as it's far more exploitative in nature than Holocaust. Lenzi was setting out purely to shock and wasn't making any attempt at all at social comment. At least Holocaust has something to say, there's a philosophy behind the carnage. Ferox is pure exploitation on every level and, as such, would not fare well at the BBFC. The only animal killing that might possibly get through at this time is the killing of the lizard, it's decapitated swiftly.

[The Reaper Man@Cult Labs]

Most Euro labels wait until someone else releases it on HD goodness Dae!
(BTW THE DEVILS was brought into the equation because it was Michael replying.)
Not sure a LOT of Euro label's BD releases are strictly legit......