Shameless
have heard from the BBFC that the long edition of Cannibal
Holocaust (i.e. not the new edit from Deodato) has been
passed with just 15 seconds of BBFC cuts to the killing of a
muskrat.
Rather than just cutting the scene, Shameless have kept the
audio and simply replaced the visual footage with alternative
shots so the running time is as originally submitted. This will
make the cut seamless as opposed to jarring jump-cut.
Although expected after the BBFC's earlier advice to
Shameless, this is a real milestone for UK film classification
and Cannibal Holocaust and is being celebrated up in Shameless
Towers!
Update: BBFC explain their waived cuts
Kudos to the BBFC for the frank explanation of the 2001 animal cruelty
cuts.
13th May 2011. See
extended classification information from
bbfc.co.uk, Thanks to Gavin Salkeld
Cannibal
Holocaust is a 1980 Italian horror film. It tells the story of a
group of documentary film makers who go missing in the rain-forests
of South America. An anthropologist who goes in search of the film
makers finds cans containing their undeveloped footage. When the
processed footage is viewed, back in New York City, it reveals their
fate. The film was classified 18 for strong sex, sexual
violence, bloody violence and animal slaughter.
Cannibal Holocaust contains a
number of scenes of sexual and sexualised violence that are
insufficiently discreet for a 15 classification and which
received varying levels of cuts when the film was previously
submitted in 2001. In one scene, we see a native woman receiving
a ritual punishment for adultery, which involves her
being dragged out of a boat, being tied up, and then being
violently assaulted with a spiked wooden dildo and a ball of mud
containing spikes. Although the scene is shocking and some blood
is seen, the emphasis is on the disturbing nature of what is
happening, rather than on any erotic detail. The moments of
nudity, which are generally shown in longer shot, are well
broken up by facial shots of the woman and her attacker, as well
as by reaction shots from the disgusted anthropologist and his
team who are watching from behind a bush. In another scene, we
briefly see a native woman being attacked by a member of another
tribe. However, no detail is visible beyond some undetailed
thrusting. Later in the film, we witness the documentary film
makers raping a native woman. However, the woman in question is
covered in mud and very little detail of nudity is visible in
what is actually quite a chaotic scene. The scene is shot using
a hand-held camera, with the woman moving in and out of view
behind the thrusting buttocks of the film makers. The emphasis
is firmly on the sadism of the film makers, rather than on any
erotic detail, with cutaways to the female film maker protesting
about what is being done. Finally, there is a scene in which the
female member of the film crew is sexually assaulted and then
killed by the cannibals, in retribution for the violence she and
her crew have meted out against the native people. As with the
previous scene, the manner of filming is chaotic, with hand-held
camera-work and the action often moving in and out of focus
behind other characters and the surrounding vegetation. The
Guidelines state Content which might endorse or eroticise
sexual violence may require cuts at any classification level.
Although cuts were required to all four scenes of sexual
violence in 2001, the BBFC's conclusion today is that the
limited detail of nudity, and the frequent intercutting of the
scenes with other material, renders the scenes horrific and
aversive rather than erotic or likely to eroticise or endorse
sexual violence in the real world.
The BBFC's Guidelines state It is
illegal to show any scene 'organised or directed for the
purposes of the film that involves actual cruelty to animals.
This Act applies to the exhibition of films in public cinemas,
but the BBFC also applies the same test to video works. In 2001,
the BBFC permitted two scenes of unsimulated animal killing in
Cannibal Holocaust, namely the decapitation of a snake
and the stamping to death of a tarantula. In the case of the
snake, the killing was permitted because the decapitation of the
snake was instant and therefore comprised a quick clean kill,
which is not inherently cruel in terms of BBFC policy. In the
case of the tarantula, the killing was permitted because spiders
are invertebrates and are therefore not covered by the relevant
legislation, nor by BBFC Guidelines or policy. However, cuts
were required to four other sequences in which animals were
actually killed, namely a small mammal, a turtle, a monkey and a
pig. On this occasion, the BBFC concluded that the killing of
the small mammal, previously cut in 2001, was still in breach of
BBFC Guidelines and policy. In the scene in question, a small
mammal (described as a muskrat in the film) is killed
using a knife. The animal is repeatedly cut with the knife,
resulting in blood loss, and squeals in evident pain and terror.
This protracted killing is a clear breach of BBFC Guidelines and
policy in relation to the cruel infliction of pain and terror on
an animal and in terms of the cruel goading of an animal to
fury. However, careful examination of the other three scenes of
animal killing revealed that, in each case, the animal in
question is killed quickly and cleanly. The turtle's neck is
completely and instantly severed, with a rapid blow from a
machete; the monkey is killed by the first of two rapid blows
from a machete, resulting in its head being cut in two; the pig
is killed by a gun shot to the head at close range, resulting in
instant death. Although, in the case of the turtle and the pig,
there is some sight of the animals' bodies (or body parts)
twitching, this is evidently a post mortem nervous reaction,
akin to a headless chicken running around a farmyard. Although
the BBFC recognises that these scenes of animal slaughter may be
upsetting or offensive to some viewers, it is clear that the
scenes in question depict animals being killed in a quick and
clean fashion that is acceptable under BBFC Guidelines and
policy and the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937, on which
that policy is based.
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. In spite of any ethical
concerns viewers might have about the killing of real animals
for film making purposes, removing these sequences would be
inconsistent with the BBFC's decisions to permit quick clean
kills in several other films, such as Apocalypse Now. It
is clear that these scenes are not illegal and are not likely to
be harmful to adult viewers. Indeed, the most likely reaction is
disgust and revulsion.
