Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

BBFC Cut 52 Year Old Film


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-11-2013, 00:39
lionelmorton
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 507

They're at it again.
Old Audie Murphy westerns shown countless times on tv over the years can't escape the wrath of the BBFC .
Cock fighting is the culprit here .
It doesn't happen in movies today so it's rarely an issue but exactly what is achieved by cutting it out of a 52 year old film?
Will it change anything?

http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/latest...ody_Beach_5176
lionelmorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 22-11-2013, 05:25
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,718
bbfc wouldn't care, they would just see themselves as enforcing a law that was brought in over genuine public concern over treatment of animals in Westerns. The fact Hollywood didn't do horse falls after Heaven's Gate, and as such almost all cuts are to pre 1980 films is irrelevant, the law is the law.

I can kind of understand why action was taken, looking at Heaven's Gate uncut, I don't know if there is a count of how many horses got killed for that film, but it must have been a fair few, and it is nasty to watch in places.

I'm sure region 1 dvds of all cut films are easily obtainable if you care that much about it.
JCR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2013, 10:54
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 69,895
As applied:

"only vertebrates which are domesticated or otherwise under the control of man are defined as Ďanimalsí.
Stuff zoology, the lawmakers have redefined what an animal is.
CLL Dodge is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2013, 21:35
lionelmorton
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 507
bbfc wouldn't care, they would just see themselves as enforcing a law that was brought in over genuine public concern over treatment of animals in Westerns. The fact Hollywood didn't do horse falls after Heaven's Gate, and as such almost all cuts are to pre 1980 films is irrelevant, the law is the law.

I can kind of understand why action was taken, looking at Heaven's Gate uncut, I don't know if there is a count of how many horses got killed for that film, but it must have been a fair few, and it is nasty to watch in places.

I'm sure region 1 dvds of all cut films are easily obtainable if you care that much about it.
I've not looked but Audie Murphy might even be too obscure for R1.
I don't have cut films - regardless of the reason for the cuts.
If a film is cut I wait until I can get it uncut .
Soldier Blue is not out in the UK and I assume its because the distributor couldn't be bothered to create a special disc just for the UK so Europe gets it but we don't.
The UK is failing in the Bluray market . The amount of titles being released in Italy , Spain and Germany is far less than the UK and some companies seem to be ignoring the UK .
Columbia/Sony and Studio Canal are releasing dozens more titles in the rest of Europe than they are here.

I don't think censorship accounts for many of the no shows though.
lionelmorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-11-2013, 21:57
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
I've not looked but Audie Murphy might even be too obscure for R1.
I don't have cut films - regardless of the reason for the cuts.
If a film is cut I wait until I can get it uncut .
Soldier Blue is not out in the UK and I assume its because the distributor couldn't be bothered to create a special disc just for the UK so Europe gets it but we don't.
The UK is failing in the Bluray market . The amount of titles being released in Italy , Spain and Germany is far less than the UK and some companies seem to be ignoring the UK .
Columbia/Sony and Studio Canal are releasing dozens more titles in the rest of Europe than they are here.

I don't think censorship accounts for many of the no shows though.
StudioCanal are an indie, they don't necessarily have pan-European rights for all their titles. They entered the UK market by buying Optimum Releasing, which might explain the lack of coherence before their purchase date.
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 23-11-2013, 22:59
lionelmorton
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 507
StudioCanal are an indie, they don't necessarily have pan-European rights for all their titles. They entered the UK market by buying Optimum Releasing, which might explain the lack of coherence before their purchase date.
I wouldn't call StudioCanal an Indie like they may have been 20 years ago.

They purchased Thorn EMI many years ago and own the rights to hundreds of British films from smaller studios like British Lion and Anglo Amalgamated.
Calling them an Indie insinuates they are a small outfit that makes a few films , owns little and licences product from others when it fact they probably own more than any other European company .(Carlton / ITVown a lot too thanks to their purchase of Rank and ITC amongst others)
They own the rights to the archive of ABC television and have licenced tv and movie content to Network.
They own The Avengers and many other tv shows.
They licenced their content to companies like Warner and then Optimum who they purchased in order to release their own content.
Their name can be found on many major movies today.

Pretty sure that any films for which they own UK rights they also own for the rest of the world apart from some films in the US but only because the distribution was shared at the time.
They may have been called an Indie once but its a bit of dis-service to their size these days.

They've released several Hammer films on Bluray in Australia that they've not bothered with here yet although I think it may be down to the negative reaction some of their releases got.
The Oz boxset does contain a couple of titles that SC don't own in the UK though but most of them are titles that SC own and Warner own in the US

Even the decade old US dvd boxset of the early Carry On films was licenced from SC who own the first 12 Carry On movies
lionelmorton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 00:13
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
I wouldn't call StudioCanal an Indie like they may have been 20 years ago.

They purchased Thorn EMI many years ago and own the rights to hundreds of British films from smaller studios like British Lion and Anglo Amalgamated.
Calling them an Indie insinuates they are a small outfit that makes a few films , owns little and licences product from others when it fact they probably own more than any other European company .(Carlton / ITV own a lot too thanks to their purchase of Rank and ITC amongst others)
They own the rights to the archive of ABC television and have licenced tv and movie content to Network. They own The Avengers and many other tv shows. They licenced their content to companies like Warner and then Optimum who they purchased in order to release their own content.
Their name can be found on many major movies today.

Pretty sure that any films for which they own UK rights they also own for the rest of the world apart from some films in the US but only because the distribution was shared at the time.
They may have been called an Indie once but its a bit of dis-service to their size these days.

They've released several Hammer films on Bluray in Australia that they've not bothered with here yet although I think it may be down to the negative reaction some of their releases got. The Oz boxset does contain a couple of titles that SC don't own in the UK though but most of them are titles that SC own and Warner own in the US

Even the decade old US dvd boxset of the early Carry On films was licenced from SC who own the first 12 Carry On movies
Calling them an indie was a bad idea, it's also massively inaccurate. Seeing as they're owned by the Canal+ Group, which is (or at least were) jointly owned by Vivendi and NBCUniversal.

StudioCanal has rapidly expanded in recent years due to acquisitions and re-brands of acquisitions. They do have a massive library, but looking at the titles, it's perhaps not worth as much as you'd think.

StudioCanal made a name as a co-financier for Universal films. And as a result ended up with the French rights for these films, and I think they now handle Universal films in Germany. However, they are now suing Universal claiming they were cheated out of millions of dollars from their co-financing agreements.

They do not own international rights for all their UK released films, however they might do for their archive libraries. They only have UK rights for Pan's Labyrinth for example.

They have a catalogue deal with Lionsgate, who hand US home media releases of teir films, and now distribute the Miramax back catalogue worldwide (although they don't own it and share it with Lionsgate in the US and UK).

I don't know, but I think Icon Entertainment owns UK rights for (at least some of) Hammer's back catalogue, maybe that's why they haven't been released over here?
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 03:35
IWasBored
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,135
bbfc wouldn't care, they would just see themselves as enforcing a law that was brought in over genuine public concern over treatment of animals in Westerns. The fact Hollywood didn't do horse falls after Heaven's Gate, and as such almost all cuts are to pre 1980 films is irrelevant, the law is the law.

I can kind of understand why action was taken, looking at Heaven's Gate uncut, I don't know if there is a count of how many horses got killed for that film, but it must have been a fair few, and it is nasty to watch in places.

I'm sure region 1 dvds of all cut films are easily obtainable if you care that much about it.
They were horse falls in Heaven's Gate? Isn't that meant to be a really shit film that is very very long? What region are we in the UK? Isn't it region 2? I find the BBFC despicable
IWasBored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 13:15
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
They were horse falls in Heaven's Gate? Isn't that meant to be a really shit film that is very very long? What region are we in the UK? Isn't it region 2? I find the BBFC despicable
This issue is not horse falls, the issue is dangerous horse falls. There are safe(r) ways of doing it, that would mean it wasn't censored. As the law prohibits the depiction of cruelty to animals. Which is why the water buffalo killing sequence in Apocalypse Now is uncut, because the method used to kill it is/was not cruel.

The UK region 1 for DVD and B for Blu-ray.

How dare they enforce the laws they were set up to enforce? Despicable...
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 14:39
Ancient IDTV
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,979
Nothing would surprise me. They even messed about with ancient Tom and Jerry cartoons.
Ancient IDTV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 14:59
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 69,895
This issue is not horse falls, the issue is dangerous horse falls. There are safe(r) ways of doing it, that would mean it wasn't censored. As the law prohibits the depiction of cruelty to animals. Which is why the water buffalo killing sequence in Apocalypse Now is uncut, because the method used to kill it is/was not cruel.

The UK region 1 for DVD and B for Blu-ray.

How dare they enforce the laws they were set up to enforce? Despicable...
But would viewers notice and be offended? 52 years later the animals in the movie are long dead and horse-tripping is outlawed in Hollywood.

The American Humane Association controls how filmmakers care for animals used in movies. They did so when this movie was made but have evidently toughened their rules since the likes of Heaven's Gate (1981) and Tom Horn (1980), both still cut by the BBFC.
CLL Dodge is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 16:23
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
But would viewers notice and be offended? 52 years later the animals in the movie are long dead and horse-tripping is outlawed in Hollywood.

The American Humane Association controls how filmmakers care for animals used in movies. They did so when this movie was made but have evidently toughened their rules since the likes of Heaven's Gate (1981) and Tom Horn (1980), both still cut by the BBFC.
They do not decide the law, they enforce it. They cannot stop enforcing the law because they disagree with it, that's above their station.

You don't have issue with the BBFC, you have issue with the law...
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 16:26
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
Nothing would surprise me. They even messed about with ancient Tom and Jerry cartoons.
I can find no evidence of the BBFC cutting Tom and Jerry.

There are altered versions available, because the distributor felt racial stereotypes wouldn't go down as well these days. But as far as I know all home media releases have been uncut.
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 18:46
rua is god
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 1,960
This issue is not horse falls, the issue is dangerous horse falls. There are safe(r) ways of doing it, that would mean it wasn't censored. As the law prohibits the depiction of cruelty to animals. Which is why the water buffalo killing sequence in Apocalypse Now is uncut, because the method used to kill it is/was not cruel.

The UK region 1 for DVD and B for Blu-ray.

How dare they enforce the laws they were set up to enforce? Despicable...
Region 1 is The Americas generally
We're in Region 2 with Australia.
rua is god is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 20:31
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,718
They were horse falls in Heaven's Gate? Isn't that meant to be a really shit film that is very very long? What region are we in the UK? Isn't it region 2? I find the BBFC despicable
There are several horse falls, a cock fight, and a lengthy final battle sequence with dozens of horses involved, including a number of shots where horses are clearly terrified by the amount of pryo that going off around them and a shot that appears to show a horse being killed, though it's difficult to tell with the amount of smoke in the sequence.

There's little doubt many horses died for Heaven's Gate. The UK cut, which has about a minute of animal cruelty taken out, is out on blu-ray tomorrow, I'd actually recommend the film as you can say whatever you like about Heaven's Gate, but there will never ever be a film that is like it again, a true original.

Snapshot of horses in Heaven's Gate battle scene.
JCR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 21:11
Gort
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,135
Which is why the water buffalo killing sequence in Apocalypse Now is uncut, because the method used to kill it is/was not cruel.
Makes you wonder why the Oldboy octopus scene is still shown. Not that I disagree with the censoring of actual animal cruelty, it's just that there seems to be a contradiction.
Gort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 21:42
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 48,117
Is the cow scene still in Apocalypse Now?

I read somewhere that it was allowed in because the scene wasn't specifically done for the movie. It was done by the villagers and was filmed (if you get what I mean).
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 22:04
JCR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Posts: 13,718
Is the cow scene still in Apocalypse Now?

I read somewhere that it was allowed in because the scene wasn't specifically done for the movie. It was done by the villagers and was filmed (if you get what I mean).
From bbfc.co.uk-

The RSPCA wrote to the Director of the BBFC expressing concern at the scene prior to the filmís release in the UK. James Ferman seems to have informed them that he was of the view that this appeared to be an actual ritual slaughter which was not orchestrated solely for the purposes of the film and therefore did not fall foul of the Act. Also, he was of the opinion that the animal was killed very quickly and therefore humanely, another allowance under the Act.
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/apocalypse-now
JCR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 22:27
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
Region 1 is The Americas generally
We're in Region 2 with Australia.
I know it's region 2, don't know why I put region 1. I really need to start proof reading my answers...
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 22:32
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,171
Makes you wonder why the Oldboy octopus scene is still shown. Not that I disagree with the censoring of actual animal cruelty, it's just that there seems to be a contradiction.
If I remember rightly, an BBFC assessor's decision is two-folded:

A) it plays a significant role in the story in terms of Oh's characterisation, which is tied to B) below:
B) eating live seafood was/is part of South Korean cuisine, which makes it part of a culture that in turn plays a role in Oh's characterisation.

I still don't agree with that decision, let alone their acceptance of Park's artistic justification for the scene. Not only it wasn't the norm, it was staged specifically for the film, which violates the BBFC's basic rules. I can't imagine them accepting a British film with a scene of a cow being slaughtered in an actual abattoir. Killing cows is part of life here, but would the BBFC accept that in a film? I doubt it. So why should they accept the octopus scene in this case?

(Oldboy is crap, anyway.)
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-11-2013, 23:49
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
If I remember rightly, an BBFC assessor's decision is two-folded:

A) it plays a significant role in the story in terms of Oh's characterisation, which is tied to B) below:
B) eating live seafood was/is part of South Korean cuisine, which makes it part of a culture that in turn plays a role in Oh's characterisation.

I still don't agree with that decision, let alone their acceptance of Park's artistic justification for the scene. Not only it wasn't the norm, it was staged specifically for the film, which violates the BBFC's basic rules. I can't imagine them accepting a British film with a scene of a cow being slaughtered in an actual abattoir. Killing cows is part of life here, but would the BBFC accept that in a film? I doubt it. So why should they accept the octopus scene in this case?

(Oldboy is crap, anyway.)
Surely that would depend on what technique the abattoir uses and how narratively important it is. Chances are if someone does it won't be narratively important. (I doubt anyone's going to do a cow based horror movie any time soon...)
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 03:18
IWasBored
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,135
How dare they enforce the laws they were set up to enforce? Despicable...
I don't like censorship . It makes me quite cross. Those video nasty years made me very angry.
IWasBored is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 08:02
theonlyweeman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,784
I don't like censorship . It makes me quite cross. Those video nasty years made me very angry.
Then your issue is with the Video Recordings Act and Obscene Publications Act and whichever animal safety act the cruelty to animal clause is hidden in, and not the BBFC
theonlyweeman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 09:56
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,531
This is rather misplaced rage. The BBFC are just doing what the guidelines tell them to do regarding animal cruelty.

But hey.. "dOWn Wiv the BBFC!!!"!1"
roger_50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2013, 13:19
Takae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 7,171
Surely that would depend on what technique the abattoir uses and how narratively important it is. Chances are if someone does it won't be narratively important.
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.
The Isle wasn't. Kim had to alter or remove scenes of a lizard or frog being skinned alive and fishes being superficially knifed while still alive.

What's the difference in that respect? Same with his other films that feature dubious animal scenes. Some were amended at the BBFC's request, and some were passed uncut. One JP film has an upsetting scene of a child actor smashing the shell of a tortoise with a hammer. Because it wasn't crucial to the plot, I fully expected the BBFC to file a suggestion to have this scene removed, but it was passed uncut. (The UK distributor had it removed anyway, thank god.)

It's the inconsistency I object to. Culture or not? Artistic or not? Too inconsistent, too slippery.

Personally, if I had my way, I wouldn't allow any film-maker to have an animal harmed or killed for a film, regardless of nationality and/or culture, unless it's part of a natural occurrence. As in, it exists before the film-maker comes along to film it, and it would continue to exist long after the film-maker is gone. I'd take it further by not having an actor to do the job. I strongly feel it's best left to those experienced in slaughtering an animal or fish.

(I doubt anyone's going to do a cow based horror movie any time soon...)
You haven't lived until you see the one involves vampire cows.
Takae is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:13.