Heavy BBFC cuts to Korean action movie

[Markgway]

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV279931/

[degeneration]

4m 54s of horses being tripped?! That seems like a lot of tripping.

[HungFist]

Sounds like Hard Boiled with horses

BBFC sure keeping themselves busy these days.

[Markgway]

I've never seen such a heavy cuts load for horse trips.

Must be pretty nasty stuff... or the BBFC are overreacting.

[Killer Meteor]

The BBFC are odd - they're letting CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST through mostly uncut.

[HungFist]

The BBFC are odd - they're letting CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST through mostly uncut.

Because the Koreans didn't eat the horses!

[Markgway]

The BBFC are odd - they're letting CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST through mostly uncut.

Crazy, I know.

[grim_tales]

Must be pretty nasty to have almost 5 minutes cut for horse trips

[Yi-Long]

I can't believe the BBFC allowed the scene of Jackie squatting the fly in The Karate Kid to be in the movie ...

Surely, squatting an animal is worse for it's health than tripping it...

[Shingster]

If you want to talk about BBFC and Jackie Chan films, how come the blatant horse trip in Little Big Soldier was left in, was it actually faked??

Also the BBFC get a bad rep from people who don't seem to understand how film censorship works in this country, they're only there to make sure a film complies with British law and protect distributors/retailers from possible prosecution. Cuts to films with Animal cruelty or sexualised violence are not made because the BBFC themselves have a particular bugbear with said content, it's because UK legislation is a partcular bitch when it comes to those subjects. Yes they make some questionable censortship choices from time to time, but they're not quite as Draconian as the likes of Hung would have people believe.

[HungFist]

Hey, what did I say?

Ok, my bad. I'll stop mocking BBFC and start mocking The UK instead

[Yi-Long]

If you want to talk about BBFC and Jackie Chan films, how come the blatant horse trip in Little Big Soldier was left in, was it actually faked??

Also the BBFC get a bad rep from people who don't seem to understand how film censorship works in this country, they're only there to make sure a film complies with British law and protect distributors/retailers from possible prosecution. Cuts to films with Animal cruelty or sexualised violence are not made because the BBFC themselves have a particular bugbear with said content, it's because UK legislation is a partcular bitch when it comes to those subjects. Yes they make some questionable censortship choices from time to time, but they're not quite as Draconian as the likes of Hung would have people believe.

What does UK legislation say about the tossers on horses running through the english fields every weekend with a pack of attackdogs to shoot and tear up sweet gorgeous foxes!?

[Shingster]

Yes UK legislation is fucked up, because our populace generally don't give a fuck when the politicians slip new nanny-state leglislation in through the back door, but at least you are aiming your anti-UK-film-censorship ire in the right direction now!

[Markgway]

If you want to talk about BBFC and Jackie Chan films, how come the blatant horse trip in Little Big Soldier was left in, was it actually faked??

The BBFC list a single 2 sec cut for that film:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV272735/

Also the BBFC get a bad rep from people who don't seem to understand how film censorship works in this country, they're only there to make sure a film complies with British law and protect distributors/retailers from possible prosecution.

I understand how it works. I just think the result is strange. The BBFC may be acting on a legal basis, but their opinions (or the opinions of those consulted) I don't always agree with. Horse trips are deemed cruel? Fair enough; but how can the decapitation of a turtle or a monkey being bludgeoned to death NOT be considered cruel? If you asked 100 people I'd wager every one of them would deem those examples cruel. Re. Cannibal Holocaust: Both were staged explicitly by the filmmakers for the purposes of entertainment. So the poor animal's suffering isn't extensive... is that really the point? Is cruelty dictated by protraction? Isn't any senseless murder (i.e for purposes of entertainment in this case) inherently cruel? So whilst the BBFC are carrying out the law, I still think their approach is morally wrong.

What does UK legislation say about the tossers on horses running through the english fields every weekend with a pack of attackdogs to shoot and tear up sweet gorgeous foxes!?

That's OK. Oh sure, a while back it was officially banned, but the arseholes don't pay any attention, and the police and politicians turn a blind eye. Maybe we should put the BBFC in charge of bloodsports?

[Shingster]

If you want to talk about BBFC and Jackie Chan films, how come the blatant horse trip in Little Big Soldier was left in, was it actually faked??

The BBFC list a single 2 sec cut for that film:

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/AVV272735/

That's interesting, the horsetrip is certainly in the film so either their cuts were ineffective, or they cut one horsetrip and let one through, or the Blu-ray release (which I rented) is uncut (wouldn't be the first film on a home video medium to mistakenly use an uncut print).

I understand how it works. I just think the result is strange. The BBFC may be acting on a legal basis, but their opinions (or the opinions of those consulted) I don't always agree with. Horse trips are deemed cruel? Fair enough; but how can the decapitation of a turtle or a monkey being bludgeoned to death NOT be considered cruel?

Are those left in the UK release of Cannibal Holocaust? I've not seen the film myself but I always assumed all the animal cruelty was cut out of the UK release. Again though a lot of the animal cruelty that's passed by the BBFC comes from the allowances of the Cinematograph Animal Act, which allows ritualistic (ie: undirected acts) or "clean" kills. Sometimes the BBFC's interpretation of that allowance is a bit dodgy though, I admit. A good example would be the chicken decapitation on Close Encounters of a Spooky Kind, which although can be argued as part of a ritualistic ceremony, is clearly directed.

[Markgway]

That's interesting, the horsetrip is certainly in the film so either their cuts were ineffective, or they cut one horsetrip and let one through, or the Blu-ray release (which I rented) is uncut (wouldn't be the first film on a home video medium to mistakenly use an uncut print).

I haven't seen the film myself so can't comment on specific cuts/trips etc. But maybe someone else has and can.

Are those left in the UK release of Cannibal Holocaust? I've not seen the film myself but I always assumed all the animal cruelty was cut out of the UK release. Again though a lot of the animal cruelty that's passed by the BBFC comes from the allowances of the Cinematograph Animal Act, which allows ritualistic (ie: undirected acts) or "clean" kills. Sometimes the BBFC's interpretation of that allowance is a bit dodgy though, I admit. A good example would be the chicken decapitation on Close Encounters of a Spooky Kind, which although can be argued as part of a ritualistic ceremony, is clearly directed.

My point shared. The BBFC act based on law and yet their interpretation is very subjective. All bar one of the cruelty cuts to Cannibal Holocaust have been waived - the stabbing of the Muskrat. I've not seen the film in any version (and refuse to do so) and so am going by the BBFC's own records. I don't defend any film that includes animal slaughter (even classics like Encounter of the Spooky Kind or Mr. Vampire)... but chicken slaughter is a common occurance in life everywhere; what possible natural purpose can decapitating a turtle or bludgeoning a monkey have? I don't believe that a quick (ie. one blow) kill is enough to justify legal censor passing. Is it OK for me to film a dog being shot in the head as long as it dies from a single bullet? No, I'd be prosecuted and rightly so. I don't see there's any difference.

[HungFist]

Are you talking about the UK only. Because you seem to be telling it's understandable to kill chicken because that's common in your country, but not understandable to kill turtle because that's common in other cultures?

[HungFist]

The chicken killings are usually defended with two arguments
1) They can be seen as truthful documentation of a specific culture. Ritual killings are done in certain countries, so it can be shown in movies as well.
2) The chickens were uses as food.

With Cannibal Holocaust we actually have largely the same arguments. Turtles are also used as food in many countries. While Cannibal Holocaust did not deal with this specific issue, the killed animals were indeed used as food for the crew.

Furthermore, the film is very socio critical (aside being exploitative, to the extent of becoming critical towards itself): it displays western people as beasts worse than cannibals. The film is actually almost pseudo-documentary, half of it consisting of “documentary tapes” by a western documentary crew that went into the jungles to kill, rape, and cause any destruction they could film and then sell the tapes to western audiences to fill their bloodthirst.

I won’t ask you to watch the film, because I understand your stand perfectly (plus I know you watch movies for entertainment, which Cannibal Holocaust is not about). I’m highly mixed about it too – it’s a good film and very thought provoking, but I refuse to watch any of the animal cruelty, hence opting for the animal cruelty free version (that means, I wouldn’t watch the new BBFC passed version). Were it a new film I’d protest it by not watching it at all. But the world has thankfully changed since the film was made, and protest would be meaningless in practical sense.

But do me a favor, listen to these tracks from the film’s soundtrack. They may be a bit different than you’d expect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQamlINx3Yc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9nKgvenmCw

[Killer Meteor]

I must say I'm glad James Ferman left the BBFC. A lot of the 70s kung fu films were hacked to bits.

[Shingster]

Whether an animal is used as food afterwards or whether an offending film has specific artisitic or political merit has no bearing whatsoever on UK law Hung, the Cinematograph Animals Act only concerns unnecessary cruelty that is directed specifically by the filmmakers.

[HungFist]

Whether an animal is used as food afterwards or whether an offending film has specific artisitic or political merit has no bearing whatsoever on UK law Hung, the Cinematograph Animals Act only concerns unnecessary cruelty that is directed specifically by the filmmakers.

I meant in general / moral sense. But thanks for pointing that out anyway.

It's interesting BBFC admit they've made random calls rather than follow the law...

The 2001 decision to cut these scenes was primarily the result of the disgusting and exploitative nature of the sequences, as well as the history of the film as a DPP-listed 'video nasty', rather than the result of a strict application of BBFC policy.

- http://www.bbfc.co.uk/GVV102579/

[Markgway]

Are you talking about the UK only. Because you seem to be telling it's understandable to kill chicken because that's common in your country, but not understandable to kill turtle because that's common in other cultures?

The 1937 Cinematograph Act preventing the screening of cruelty to animals for purposes of entertainment is a uniquely British law. You would expect a British law to reflect British concern. Maybe in some countries turtles are decapitated and eaten... maybe in some countries people are decapitated and eaten? Is that OK therefore?

I won’t ask you to watch the film, because I understand your stand perfectly (plus I know you watch movies for entertainment, which Cannibal Holocaust is not about). I’m highly mixed about it too – it’s a good film and very thought provoking, but I refuse to watch any of the animal cruelty, hence opting for the animal cruelty free version (that means, I wouldn’t watch the new BBFC passed version). Were it a new film I’d protest it by not watching it at all. But the world has thankfully changed since the film was made, and protest would be meaningless in practical sense.

I understand where you're coming from. The only way I would even remotely consider this particular film is if the new director approved version (minus all cruelty and killing) was shown on TV.

[HungFist]

maybe in some countries people are decapitated and eaten? Is that OK therefore?

I believe that's exactly what Ruggero Deodato was accused of back in 1980

[Markgway]

I believe that's exactly what Ruggero Deodato was accused of back in 1980

Your shitting me? Film can't be that convincing!

[HungFist]

I added spoiler tags, although it's not much of a spoiler. It just gives away the structure of the film

From what I recall the crew was indeed charged on killing people. The producer advertised the film as true story: the first half of the film was supposed to be a re-acted version showing how the "documentary" tapes were found, and the second half was the "real documentary tapes" (this footage was intentionally shot on inferior film stock than the rest of the film, so a sort of grindhouse trick in use here, 30 years before Tarantino and Rodriguez).

I don't think anyone believed the story of a documentary crew gone missing, but instead someone believed Deodato and pals had shot this footage and killed people in the process. The producer had even paid his "dead" actor to disappear for one year. So he had to track down these people bring them to court to show that they are indeed still alive.

It's been about two years since I saw the film. I suppose the effects were rather convincing, but it's a different era now. I don't think anyone would mistake the film as real today. Back in 1980 we had a bunch of crazy Italians going to Amazon to shoot a film (and kill real animals). Who knew what they did there... maybe slaughter a few natives