Right. Let's consider the case of SK director Ki-duk Kim. Address Unknown was passed uncut. The leading actor/character beats dogs to death with a baseball bat for the local meat market.
So was this actual harm or was it filmed in a way to appear to harm? I can accept the inclusion of a scene that appears to show a dog being beaten to death, as long as it's staged and didn't actually happen or traumatise an animal (not saying I want to see such a scene, though), but if this was a real killing of a dog, then I'm extremely surprised and aghast that it went uncut.
[A few minutes later.]
Actually, I've just checked up on this film and it's claimed that no animals were actually harmed (apparently there's a disclaimer at the beginning). So, in this instance and if the dog wasn't actually harmed, then I don't see a real problem in relation with the BBFC's lack of censoring in this case.
Comments
So was this actual harm or was it filmed in a way to appear to harm? I can accept the inclusion of a scene that appears to show a dog being beaten to death, as long as it's staged and didn't actually happen or traumatise an animal (not saying I want to see such a scene, though), but if this was a real killing of a dog, then I'm extremely surprised and aghast that it went uncut.
[A few minutes later.]
Actually, I've just checked up on this film and it's claimed that no animals were actually harmed (apparently there's a disclaimer at the beginning). So, in this instance and if the dog wasn't actually harmed, then I don't see a real problem in relation with the BBFC's lack of censoring in this case.
Most of these screw ups (I read a good 80% of it last night) are off camera so are of little concern to the BBFC as far as the law goes.
However obviously it is not particularly nice, especially the story about the chipmunk....