Channel 4 - Censored...
Ian Taylor
Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
All this plus the Exploitica season.
I'm impressed!
--
Gary Robert Kelly
<7a8tgq$8u8$1...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>
>Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
>'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
>Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
With the 'splinter in the eye' scene intact? Here's hoping...
Gaz Kelly <change 'tepid' to 'hot' to reply>
"Her head's that bad that she can't get her tights on."
Hidrijnk Chaisse
>Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
>'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
>Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
Texas Chain Saw Massacre might have been more like it, as that's
actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
dodgy-looking gore effects in em. Have C4 ever shown Man Bites Dog?
--
Hidrijnk Chaisse
COLMCQ
they could be showing far more interesting movies than they currently are.
TVM's are beyond the pail...
Paul
a shot of a pig having it's throat cut - yuck !
...are they going to show scenes from Faces of Death (or something
similar...)
..still at least it should have a reasonable porn content :-)
Dom
"Gary Robert Kelly" <blac...@tepidmail.com> writes:
>Ian Taylor wrote in message
><7a8tgq$8u8$1...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
>>
>>'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
>>Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
>
>With the 'splinter in the eye' scene intact? Here's hoping...
How can they show these uncut when it breaks the ITC's rules, which Channel 4
set in motion when they screened an uncut version of "The Abyss" ?
Dom
*** TRAINSPOTTING / LINKS LS 99 / SPEED 2 / VOLCANO / JACKAL / TITANIC ****
Region 2 DVD & PAL Laserdisc reviews now online
*************** http://www.sonicstate.com/dom/reviews.htm ***************
***** Laserdiscs, DVDs, Videos, Games, CDs, plus the Widescreen Lists *****
******************** Email: mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk *******************
Gareth Young
>Ian Taylor <i...@cs.nott.ac.uk> writes
>>Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
>>'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
>>Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
>
>Texas Chain Saw Massacre might have been more like it, as that's
>actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
>dodgy-looking gore effects in em. Have C4 ever shown Man Bites Dog?
>
>--
>Hidrijnk Chaisse
film four has.
that particular film is available uncut on video over here anyway.
G.Young video sales.
Want to buy ex rental horror and martial arts films for only £5?
live in uk or europe?
email me for a list!
fic...@my-dejanews.com
"Gary Robert Kelly" <blac...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
> Ian Taylor wrote in message
> <7a8tgq$8u8$1...@paperboy.ccc.nottingham.ac.uk>...
> >
> >'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
> >Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
> With the 'splinter in the eye' scene intact? Here's hoping...
>
If C4 screen that, I'll be gobsmacked. That sequence had been removed when
the film was re-released with an "18" certificate and I'd take a guess that
this is the version they'll be showing.
fickle.
PS. If anyone hasn't seen "Zombie Flesheaters", don't bother. IMO, it's crap.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Michael Brooke
> Ian Taylor <i...@cs.nott.ac.uk> writes
> >Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
> >'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
> >Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
>
> And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
I'd certainly agree with you about the middle two (if 'Zombie Flesh
Eaters' isn't shown uncut, it's not worth bothering with), but 'Bad
Lieutenant' is an extraordinary piece of work - if only for Harvey
Keitel's lacerating performance.
> Texas Chain Saw Massacre might have been more like it, as that's
> actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
> dodgy-looking gore effects in em. Have C4 ever shown Man Bites Dog?
Film Four shows it pretty regularly - and in any case there's never been
a censorship problem with that particular film (somewhat surprisingly
under the circumstances!). At least not in the UK - bizarrely enough,
the *unrated* version in the US chopped out two of the most important
scenes (the child murder and the gang rape, both scenes representing the
film's moral turning-point), rendering it completely incomprehensible!
Michael
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAN SVANKMAJER - ALCHEMIST OF THE SURREAL
http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank
a lavish tribute to the cinema's wildest imagination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooke
C5 has the lowest budget of any terrestrial broadcaster, so it's hardly
surprising they keep falling back on ultra-cheap dreck - all this was
predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
Simon Arnold
They showed the same trailer after 'The Last Seduction' on Sunday night -
which had a (very brief) clip of the scene you mention (from 'Salon Kitty'),
and similarly short clips of Harvey Keitel ('The Bad Lieutenant') and Ian
McCulloch ('Zombie Flesheaters').
Simon
Paul wrote in message
<919114031.18118.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Gary Painter
eyeball scene, so we can assume that the others are also being shown in
their cut video forms - except Salon Kitty, which wasn't cut for video.
Simon Arnold
Gary Painter <9505...@student.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
<36C963...@student.gla.ac.uk>...
>According to Heat magazine, Zombie does NOT have the splinter in the
>eyeball scene, so we can assume that the others are also being shown in
>their cut video forms
Channel Four don't have much choice in the matter - the current ITC
rules stipulate that a film must be shown in the BBFC video certificated
version (before someone comments ... yes I know there are examples of
cases where C4 have managed to show uncut stuff in the past).
Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
- except Salon Kitty, which wasn't cut for video.
That Redemption Video ... it was cut to bits - even the BBFC website says
so.
Tracking down a fully uncut Salon Kitty, in Engilsh Language is actually
quite
a difficult task - since many European video versions are cut too.
Simon
Ian M Taylor
> And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
> actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
> dodgy-looking gore effects in em.
You sure you're not getting them mixed up with Casualty?
Anyway, ZFL and Salon Kitty are classic genre films, both directors
can be credited with some splendid efforts.
>Have C4 ever shown Man Bites Dog?
Yep. A year or two ago.
Michael Brooke
> According to Heat magazine, Zombie does NOT have the splinter in the
> eyeball scene, so we can assume that the others are also being shown in
> their cut video forms - except Salon Kitty, which wasn't cut for video.
That's what I would have expected - ITC regulations say that if a BBFC
video version is available, that's the version that should be shown.
Hidrijnk Chaisse
>> And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
>
>Eaters' isn't shown uncut, it's not worth bothering with), but 'Bad
>Lieutenant' is an extraordinary piece of work - if only for Harvey
>Keitel's lacerating performance.
I'm not lumping Bad Lieutenant in with Zombie FE and the like, but you
either love Keitel in Bad Lieut. or you think he's a bit of a silly, OTT
crying wanking screaming man in it. I'm afraid his performance had that
effect on me.
As for the Video Nasties in general - well, I remember the thrill of
going round your one mate's house who had a video player (this would ba
bout 1982) to watch Cannibal ferox, SS Experiment Camp etc. A few years
back me and a few friends got some of these "classics" to re-live those
days and well, the result was a bit like digging out an old picture of
yourself as a goth or pimply new romantic. They were embarrassingly bad
and not a little dull. We put it down to hormones in the end, and the
Mary Whitehouse effect - it is hard to believe these cheap films got so
many people's backs up (who never saw them, obviously).
I would recommend Martin barker's "The Video nasties" book, where the
author sits down to go through some of these films, and is more bored
than appalled by them.
The myth is better than the reality.
--
Hidrijnk Chaisse
Gareth Young
>C5 has the lowest budget of any terrestrial broadcaster, so it's hardly
>surprising they keep falling back on ultra-cheap dreck - all this was
>predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
>
>Michael
look how tiny HVC's budget must be.
they at least manage to show some decent (after a fashion) films.
Les Dennis
<h...@fullersXXX.co.uk> wrote:
>Ian Taylor <i...@cs.nott.ac.uk> writes
>>Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
>>'censored' weekend they're showing Evil Dead 2,
>>Salon Kitty, Zombie Flesh Eaters and Bad Lieutenant.
>
>And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
Oh, so they're _films_. I thought they were pop groups.
--
Les Dennis
No. Not that one.
Please remove primitive spam-trap if responding by e-mail
Mark Entwistle
Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
>C5 has the lowest budget of any terrestrial broadcaster, so it's hardly
>surprising they keep falling back on ultra-cheap dreck - all this was
>predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
To give them credit, they have shown 'Rolling Thunder' a couple of times
when none of the other channels have bothered. And... well, that's about
it. Unless you count Shannon Tweed movies.
Mark Entwistle
COLMCQ
Are cult movies reallly harder to show than TV movie dross?
Would C5 get a larger audience showing cult tv or showing abject shite tvm?
Dom
"COLMCQ" <FATCHIC...@OBESITY.COM> writes:
>actually, have you noticed how shockingly bad C5 is? I would have thought
>they could be showing far more interesting movies than they currently are.
>TVM's are beyond the pail...
I agree about TVM's, but my g/f can't get enough of them.
Simon Arnold
Ian M Taylor wrote:
> > And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
> > Texas Chain Saw Massacre might have been more like it, as that's
> > actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
> > dodgy-looking gore effects in em.
>
> You sure you're not getting them mixed up with Casualty?
>
> Anyway, ZFL and Salon Kitty are classic genre films, both directors
> can be credited with some splendid efforts.
... in the uncut versions ;-) C4 however, have to work within the current
ITC guidelines, which means that they'll only be permitted to screen the BBFC
approved video versions. 'Zombie Flesheaters' is a hilarious film, but one
which is
easily rendered impotent by censorship, because it is the film excesses that
most
of the humour comes from. The BBFC certificated version removes all of the
most
important (to the enjoyment of the film) scenes.
Simon
Simon Arnold
Hidrijnk Chaisse wrote:
> Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
> >
> >I'd certainly agree with you about the middle two (if 'Zombie Flesh
> >Eaters' isn't shown uncut, it's not worth bothering with), but 'Bad
> >Lieutenant' is an extraordinary piece of work - if only for Harvey
> >Keitel's lacerating performance.
>
> I'm not lumping Bad Lieutenant in with Zombie FE and the like, but you
> either love Keitel in Bad Lieut. or you think he's a bit of a silly, OTT
> crying wanking screaming man in it. I'm afraid his performance had that
> effect on me.
>
> As for the Video Nasties in general - well, I remember the thrill of
> going round your one mate's house who had a video player (this would ba
> bout 1982) to watch Cannibal ferox, SS Experiment Camp etc. A few years
> back me and a few friends got some of these "classics" to re-live those
> days and well, the result was a bit like digging out an old picture of
> yourself as a goth or pimply new romantic. They were embarrassingly bad
> and not a little dull. We put it down to hormones in the end, and the
> Mary Whitehouse effect - it is hard to believe these cheap films got so
> many people's backs up (who never saw them, obviously).
The problem with the 'video nasties' label is that it creates the impression of
a homogenised collection of films, all of similar quality. In fact all the DPP
list isuseful for is as a representative sample of the range of more obscure
films
available on video in the early 1980s. Suffice to say that the so called
'video
nasties' ensemble contains some real gems, and some utter dreck (with the
overall
balance in the favour of the latter). One could generalise to an overall view
of
these films by having watched 'Cannibal Ferox', 'SS Experiment Camp', 'Don't
Go In The Woods Alone', 'Night of The Bloody Apes' etc, but formed an entirely
different view from having watched 'Tenebrae', 'Inferno', 'The Evil Dead' and
'Cannibal Holocaust'.
> I would recommend Martin barker's "The Video nasties" book, where the
> author sits down to go through some of these films, and is more bored
> than appalled by them.
John Martin's 'The Seduction of The Gullible' is also well recommended.
> The myth is better than the reality.
or perhaps you just have to be more selective. that's one of the problems
with censorship - it removes our ability to chose the good from the crap.
Just like dodgy homebrew was drunk during the prohibition. Ironically its
easier for someone in the UK to get videos of German tennage girls
being anally fisted than it is to get a copy of 'Ai No Corrida'.
Simon
Brian McIlwrath
: i just can't fathom the logic
: Are cult movies reallly harder to show than TV movie dross?
: Would C5 get a larger audience showing cult tv or showing abject shite tvm?
FilmFour are not doing at all well selling subscriptions for cult films!
fic...@my-dejanews.com
"COLMCQ" <FATCHIC...@OBESITY.COM> wrote:
> i just can't fathom the logic
> Are cult movies reallly harder to show than TV movie dross?
> Would C5 get a larger audience showing cult tv or showing abject shite tvm?
>
My guess is that C5 buy packages of films to show - for instance, they seem
to have been showing a lot of stuff from a company called Libra Films of late
(mostly crud, but not TVMs, so it's a step in the right direction). So if
they bought a lot of stuff from, say, Hallmark Entertainment, it'd probably
contain a lot of "abject shite tvm" material.
American TV movies are, on the whole, pretty cheap to screen. Whether they're
so much cheaper to show than cult movies is open to question.
I agree with what you're saying. I'd rather C5 show obscure/cult films than
those "disease of the week" movies.
fickle.
Mark Myers
> Michael Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> writes
> >I'd certainly agree with you about the middle two (if 'Zombie Flesh
> >Eaters' isn't shown uncut, it's not worth bothering with), but 'Bad
> >Lieutenant' is an extraordinary piece of work - if only for Harvey
> >Keitel's lacerating performance.
>
> I'm not lumping Bad Lieutenant in with Zombie FE and the like, but you
> either love Keitel in Bad Lieut. or you think he's a bit of a silly, OTT
> crying wanking screaming man in it. I'm afraid his performance had that
> effect on me.
>
Although I usually love HK, I was suckered into renting BL because he was
in it. What a waste of 3 ukp.
--
Regards
Mark Myers
jahdzia at iname dot com
Gareth Young
Mark Entwistle wrote in message ...
is everybody forgetting channel 5 were the first to show natural born
killers?
Dom
Simon Arnold <s.p.a...@reading.ac.uk> writes:
>
>
>Ian M Taylor wrote:
>
>> > And we'll get to see just how crap (Evil Dead excepted) these films are.
>> > actually a pretty good film, not some cheesy dreck with a couple of
>> > dodgy-looking gore effects in em.
>>
>> You sure you're not getting them mixed up with Casualty?
>>
>> Anyway, ZFL and Salon Kitty are classic genre films, both directors
>> can be credited with some splendid efforts.
>
>... in the uncut versions ;-) C4 however, have to work within the current
>ITC guidelines, which means that they'll only be permitted to screen the BBFC
>approved video versions. 'Zombie Flesheaters' is a hilarious film, but one
>which is
>easily rendered impotent by censorship, because it is the film excesses that
>most
>of the humour comes from. The BBFC certificated version removes all of the
>most
>important (to the enjoyment of the film) scenes.
Thus negates the entire point of showing these films.
Dom
"Gareth Young" <g.y...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>
>Mark Entwistle wrote in message ...
>>In article <1dnbehd.1rp...@everyman.demon.co.uk>, Michael
>>Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>>C5 has the lowest budget of any terrestrial broadcaster, so it's hardly
>>>surprising they keep falling back on ultra-cheap dreck - all this was
>>>predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
>>
>>To give them credit, they have shown 'Rolling Thunder' a couple of times
>>when none of the other channels have bothered. And... well, that's about
>>it. Unless you count Shannon Tweed movies.
>>
>>Mark Entwistle
>
>is everybody forgetting channel 5 were the first to show natural born
>killers?
Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and withdrawing
the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed the UK theatrical
version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
Skoffin
<i...@cs.nott.ac.uk> typed text which came out as
>
>
>
>Check out Channel 4 this weekend - as part of their
While we're on the subject of this Channel 4 Censored thing, has anyone
seen the adverts for it? There's this funky instrumental, slow kind of
techno music in the background, I know I've heard it somewhere before.
Does anyone know what this track is called and who it's by?
--
Skoffin
Chris Eilbeck
> Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and
> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
Eh? I've got the merkin directors cut version and there are certainly bits
which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema and
the Bravo/Channel5 version.
Chris
--
Chris Eilbeck mailto:ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk
Gary Couzens
Mark Entwistle wrote in message ...
>In article <1dnbehd.1rp...@everyman.demon.co.uk>, Michael
>Brooke <mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk> wrote
>>C5 has the lowest budget of any terrestrial broadcaster, so it's hardly
>>surprising they keep falling back on ultra-cheap dreck - all this was
>>predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
>
>To give them credit, they have shown 'Rolling Thunder' a couple of times
>when none of the other channels have bothered. And... well, that's about
>it. Unless you count Shannon Tweed movies.
>
Cohen's "Housewife" (aka "Bone" aka "Dial Rat for Terror") and Nicolas
Roeg's "Full Body Massage", to name but two.
Gary Couzens
to...@pennywise.clara.co.uk
<ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and
>> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
>> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
>
>Eh? I've got the merkin directors cut version and there are certainly bits
>which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema and
>the Bravo/Channel5 version.
The BBFC passed NBK for an 18 video certificate uncut but Warner Bros
witheld it after Dunbalne or something. The version you've got is
probably the two tape director's cut in which Stone put all the stuff
back in that he had to take out to get an 'R' rating in the States on
one of the tapes and a documentary and scenes that didn't make the
film on the other.
Tony
Oil up the women, for tonight we celebrate
smk
>
>> Anyway, ZFL and Salon Kitty are classic genre films, both directors
>> can be credited with some splendid efforts.
>
>... in the uncut versions ;-) C4 however, have to work within the current
>ITC guidelines, which means that they'll only be permitted to screen the BBFC
>approved video versions. 'Zombie Flesheaters' is a hilarious film, but one
>which is
>easily rendered impotent by censorship, because it is the film excesses that
>most
>of the humour comes from. The BBFC certificated version removes all of the
>most
>important (to the enjoyment of the film) scenes.
Last week C4 showed Starlet in a version that was longer than the BBFC
approved one, most notably it contained the longish date rape which
was completely cut in 18cert version. Well, perhaps they missed it
'cause it was retitled for video.
Stefan Kahrs
Michael Brooke
> On 17 Feb 1999 22:08:59 +0000, Chris Eilbeck
> <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and
> >> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
> >> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
> >
> >Eh? I've got the merkin directors cut version and there are certainly bits
> >which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema and
> >the Bravo/Channel5 version.
>
> The BBFC passed NBK for an 18 video certificate uncut
..."uncut" in the sense of "not asking for any more cuts on top of those
already made in the US in order to get an R rating. This is the same
somewhat warped logic that the British distributors of 'True Romance'
used when claiming that their video version was "uncut". *They* didn't
make the cuts, and neither did the BBFC... but that doesn't mean that
cuts weren't made!
> but Warner Bros
> witheld it after Dunbalne or something.
With staggeringly bad timing, the video was due to be released the week
after Dunblane. Obviously, this would have been a PR disaster of epic
proportions for Warner Bros, so they postponed it "indefinitely", and to
date they have still not released it on video.
salvati...@redjez.demon.co.uk
>
> John Martin's 'The Seduction of The Gullible' is also well recommended.
Sorry.... Couldn't resist this shameless plug:
T H E A R T O F T H E N A S T Y
As featured in Bizarre, The Face, Empire, Neon, The Guardian Review, The
Evening Standard, Kerrang! etc... etc...
The most comprehensive collection of 'video nasty' and pre-certification
video sleeves ever reproduced in one volume. Banned by an act of
Parliament after a frenzied and hysterical press campaign, the video nasty
was seen as the harbringer of evil and a genuine threat to the fabric of
society.
The Art of the Nasty reproduces over 300 pre-certificate video covers in
all their lurid full colour glory. From the ludicrous and extreme imagery
of SS EXPERIMENT CAMP and the gross savagery of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, to the
powerful and confrontational victim on the cover of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE.
The early video distributor was brash and out for profit, using packaging
and marketing techniques reminiscent of the '30's pulps. Video's image was
to create its own demise, provoking reactions of revulsion and disgust in
the viewer. These video sleeves were often far more extreme than the films
themselves.
Written by Nigel Wingrove and Marc Morris, this is the definitive guide to
the heyday of unregulated, pre-classification UK video.
Chapters listing:
1) The Nasties: A Personal View, by Nigel Wingrove
2) The Official Nasties
3) Nasties on Parole
4) The Ones that Got Away
5) Nice and Sleazy Does It
6) The Good, The Bad and the Vomit Inducing
7) Video Listings:
An invaluable guide to the best (and worse) of pre VRA releases, with
details of the video companies and their releases. Thousands of titles are
listed!
*****************************************************************
You can order The Art of the Nasty for £19.99 plus p&p by either e-mailing
us your card details or calling us on (+171) 494 1186. All orders are
despatched within 24 hours.
Take a look at our website for some example pages:
--
Salvation Films Ltd: Redemption + Jezebel + Purgatory
Dom
Chris Eilbeck <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> writes:
>mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk (Dom) writes:
>
>> Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and
>> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
>> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
>
>Eh? I've got the merkin directors cut version and there are certainly bits
>which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema and
>the Bravo/Channel5 version.
>
Please re-read the above Chris. I was referring to the UK theatrical version,
which is the same as the R-rated US theatrical version.
The director's cut is a different kettle of fish altogether and has never
been submitted for certification over here AFAIK. It restores over 150 cuts
requested by the MPAA to gain an R-rating, hence the director's cut is
unrated (and makes an excellent film even better - certainly one of my
favourite surround-sound films)
Dom
**** TRAINSPOTTING / LINKS LS 99 / BRITS 99 AWARDS / VOLCANO / JACKAL *****
Dom
.which makes a nonsense of the ITC's ruling, because the odd film, which
doesn't get publicised, will still get through. Mention an uncut Abyss and
the ITC will be onto that channel (Ch.4 in this case) like a ton of bricks,
but bring up an obscure foreign film or TV movie, and there's a chance it'll
get through, esp. if it's been retitled because it confuses the ITC's brain.
Dom
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
><to...@pennywise.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 17 Feb 1999 22:08:59 +0000, Chris Eilbeck
>> <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
>> >> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
>> >
>> >Eh? I've got the merkin directors cut version and there are certainly bits
>> >which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema and
>> >the Bravo/Channel5 version.
>>
>
>..."uncut" in the sense of "not asking for any more cuts on top of those
>already made in the US in order to get an R rating. This is the same
>somewhat warped logic that the British distributors of 'True Romance'
>used when claiming that their video version was "uncut". *They* didn't
>make the cuts, and neither did the BBFC... but that doesn't mean that
>cuts weren't made!
Oh for crying out loud, my exact words were: "UK theatrical version uncut",
not "Unrated Director's Cut uncut". Pay attention please!
John Toman
> approved one, most notably it contained the longish date rape which
> was completely cut in 18cert version. Well, perhaps they missed it
> 'cause it was retitled for video.
>
Can anyone do me a copy of Nude on the Moon? My video went highwire. I
have stacks of rare films to trade.
Cheers,
John
Michael Brooke
>
> Oh for crying out loud, my exact words were: "UK theatrical version uncut",
> not "Unrated Director's Cut uncut". Pay attention please!
>
Your exact words were:
"Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and
withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed
the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored
film."
And I pointed out that although the *BBFC* didn't make any cuts, the UK
theatrical version was still heavily cut (something like 150 cuts were
made in order to qualify for an R rating in the US).
In other words, it *was* a censored film - it's just that the censorship
occurred in the US.
So where was I not paying attention?
Simon Arnold
>In article <1dnf5fj.4i1...@everyman.demon.co.uk>
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
>><to...@pennywise.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 Feb 1999 22:08:59 +0000, Chris Eilbeck
>>> <ch...@yordas.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> withdrawing the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who
passed
>>> >> the UK theatrical version uncut for video, so it was not a censored
film.
>>> >
bits
>>> >which were cut from that to give both the version I saw in the cinema
and
>>> >the Bravo/Channel5 version.
>>>
>>> The BBFC passed NBK for an 18 video certificate uncut
>>
>>..."uncut" in the sense of "not asking for any more cuts on top of those
>>already made in the US in order to get an R rating. This is the same
>>somewhat warped logic that the British distributors of 'True Romance'
>>used when claiming that their video version was "uncut". *They* didn't
>>make the cuts, and neither did the BBFC... but that doesn't mean that
>>cuts weren't made!
>
>not "Unrated Director's Cut uncut". Pay attention please!
Oh for crying out loud, perhaps you should pay attention to Michael's post,
which is perfectly consistent with what you posted - that the "UK theatrical
version uncut" (quotes sic) is only "uncut" with a certain stretch of
language.
Unfortunately, the same thing has happened with 'John Carpernter's
Vampires',
due to contractual obligations to deliver an MPAA R certificate.
Simon
Luis Canau
>Unfortunately, the same thing has happened with 'John Carpernter's
>Vampires', due to contractual obligations to deliver an MPAA R certificate.
It has some very gory scenes... So some more were cut? The one where the guy
had his chest cut in half vertically was pretty strong. It surprised me, since
due to the ratings systems, horror movies seem to use the same standard gore
scenes. And, well, Carpenter doesn't really use much in his films.
--
luis canau_______________________________
<luis....@mail.euNOT.pt> euNOT -> EUnet
cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie
(portuguese reading ability recommended)
_______________________________________
Alex
Dom heeft geschreven in bericht <919305...@festive.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <7af1vs$985$4...@mendelevium.btinternet.com>
> "Gareth Young" <g.y...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>>predicted long before the channel even started broadcasting!
>>>
>>>To give them credit, they have shown 'Rolling Thunder' a couple of times
>>>when none of the other channels have bothered. And... well, that's about
>>>it. Unless you count Shannon Tweed movies.
>>>
>>>Mark Entwistle
>>
>>is everybody forgetting channel 5 were the first to show natural born
>>killers?
>
>Big deal. It's just another film in the grand scheme of things, and withdrawing
>the video was Warner's decision, not the BBFC's - who passed the UK theatrical
>version uncut for video, so it was not a censored film.
Was it submitted to the BBFC uncut?
Alex
Alex
Mark Myers heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>Although I usually love HK, I was suckered into renting BL because he was
>in it. What a waste of 3 ukp.
You rented a movie for 3 pounds? The going rate over here is 1,66 Pnds.
Alex
Michael Brooke
No, it wasn't. Or rather, Warner Home Video (UK) submitted a print that
was identical to the R-rated version that underwent 150 cuts at the
request of the MPAA in the US.
So it's only "uncut" in the sense that no actual cutting occured *after*
the US release, but a great deal was cut out before it.
Andy Mabbett
<SPAMBLOCK...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
>the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
> wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
There was one in Evil Dead II (the eye gets swallowed...)
Note for the squeamish: It's not as gruesome as it sounds; more like a
Tom & Jerry cartoon...
--
Andy Mabbett
I've typed all of the right characters, but not /necessarily/ in the right
order...
no name
balls to.
Fear Panic & Censorship...
Sorry to plug but trust me It is worth it..........
Shash
Skoffin wrote in message ...
no name
prog?........
I thought it was simply promo propaganda,,,,,,,,,
What was all this Steve Wooley pushing his fingers through his hair???!!!
Where were the real womens issues....
What about the NY arthouse stuff???
I have posted loads today in various groups......please have a look at
some.......
an btw........filmfour.com are having a net chat tonight with Nick
Jones.....
see ya
Shash
no name wrote in message <7appl9$2rj$1...@nclient1-gui.server.virgin.net>...
Alex
Michael Brooke heeft geschreven in bericht <1dnixna.16m...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>Alex <avde...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Was it submitted to the BBFC uncut?
>
>No, it wasn't. Or rather, Warner Home Video (UK) submitted a print that
>was identical to the R-rated version that underwent 150 cuts at the
>request of the MPAA in the US.
Thanks. You get that a lot, that the movies you rent are the versions cut
for the MPAA or Canada.
Alex
Jim McLennan
FATCHIC...@OBESITY.COM "COLMCQ" writes:
> i just can't fathom the logic
> Are cult movies reallly harder to show than TV movie dross?
> Would C5 get a larger audience showing cult tv or showing abject shite tvm?
Well, they did show a whole slew of Russ Meyer movies over Christmas, and
if you dig around, they do show interesting bits and pieces here and
there -- I watch more C5 than BBC1 or ITV, certainly.
And besides, who needs them to show stuff that's already available on
video? I'd rather they showed "abject shite" that I've not seen before,
rather than things that are already sitting on my shelf!
--
Jim McLennan
-- Next time you visit the Internet, why not pop in to TrashCityLand? --
-- http://www.trshcity.demon.co.uk --
Dom
Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <7abq5k$ige$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk>, Simon Arnold
><SPAMBLOCK...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>>Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
>>the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
>> wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
>
>There was one in Evil Dead II (the eye gets swallowed...)
Mark Commode said something like "in almost its entirity" before the film began.
Why couldn't they source a widescreen print though? One certainly exists.
Dom
** ARMAGEDDON / THE BOXER / TRAINSPOTTING / LINKS LS 99 / BRITS 99 AWARDS *
Michael Brooke
> In article <3T2uScB7...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
> Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >In article <7abq5k$ige$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk>, Simon Arnold
> ><SPAMBLOCK...@reading.ac.uk> writes
> >>Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
> >>the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
> >> wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
> >
> >There was one in Evil Dead II (the eye gets swallowed...)
>
> Mark Commode said something like "in almost its entirity" before the film
> began.
> Why couldn't they source a widescreen print though? One certainly exists.
As someone complained on alt.cult-movies, a "widescreen" print of 'Evil
Dead II' is merely be a full-frame print with part of the picture masked
off. He'd already bought a copy of the 4:3 version, so was able to do a
comparison between the copies - and discovered that the widescreen
version offered less visual information than his original copy.
So anyone who wants a widescreen version simply has to tape bits of
black paper on the top and bottom of their screens - that should do the
job admirably!
Michael Brooke
>
> And besides, who needs them to show stuff that's already available on
> video? I'd rather they showed "abject shite" that I've not seen before,
> rather than things that are already sitting on my shelf!
This is one of the problems I'm having with FilmFour - it's great in
theory, but in practice it turns out that I already own copies of
virtually all the films that they've shown!
The only significant exceptions so far have been the Jean-Pierre
Melville films, which have been unavailable in Britain for decades - I
should know, because we'd have shown them every week at the Everyman had
copies been available!
Dom
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
>Jim McLennan <jmcl...@SPAMBLOCKtrshcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> And besides, who needs them to show stuff that's already available on
>> video? I'd rather they showed "abject shite" that I've not seen before,
>> rather than things that are already sitting on my shelf!
>
>This is one of the problems I'm having with FilmFour - it's great in
>theory, but in practice it turns out that I already own copies of
>virtually all the films that they've shown!
And that the repeat factor is way too high - almost as bad as Sky's screening
of The Simpsons..., well almost.
Dom
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
>Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <3T2uScB7...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
>> Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> >In article <7abq5k$ige$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk>, Simon Arnold
>> ><SPAMBLOCK...@reading.ac.uk> writes
>> >>Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
>> >>the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
>> >> wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
>> >
>> >There was one in Evil Dead II (the eye gets swallowed...)
>>
>> Mark Commode said something like "in almost its entirity" before the film
>> began.
>> Why couldn't they source a widescreen print though? One certainly exists.
>
>As someone complained on alt.cult-movies, a "widescreen" print of 'Evil
>Dead II' is merely be a full-frame print with part of the picture masked
>off. He'd already bought a copy of the 4:3 version, so was able to do a
>comparison between the copies - and discovered that the widescreen
>version offered less visual information than his original copy.
Why is there a widescreen NTSC LD and DVD available then? Surely as that's
the collector's edition, then the director's original intention is to have
the film at the ratio intended on the LD and DVD (approx 1.85:1)
Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>So anyone who wants a widescreen version simply has to tape bits of
>black paper on the top and bottom of their screens - that should do the
>job admirably!
You don't like widescreen at all do you?
Simon Arnold
Dom wrote:
> In article <1dnmg2h.1le...@everyman.demon.co.uk>
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
> >Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <3T2uScB7...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk>
> >> Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >> >In article <7abq5k$ige$1...@susscsc1.reading.ac.uk>, Simon Arnold
> >> ><SPAMBLOCK...@reading.ac.uk> writes
> >> >>Interestingly, the C4 listings guide at http://www.channel4.co.uk describes
> >> >>the "... eye-popping (sometimes literally) special effects ..." yet one
> >> >> wonders whether any of these will make it into the broadcast.
> >> >
> >> >There was one in Evil Dead II (the eye gets swallowed...)
> >>
> >> Mark Commode said something like "in almost its entirity" before the film
> >> began.
> >> Why couldn't they source a widescreen print though? One certainly exists.
> >
> >As someone complained on alt.cult-movies, a "widescreen" print of 'Evil
> >Dead II' is merely be a full-frame print with part of the picture masked
> >off. He'd already bought a copy of the 4:3 version, so was able to do a
> >comparison between the copies - and discovered that the widescreen
> >version offered less visual information than his original copy.
>
> Why is there a widescreen NTSC LD and DVD available then? Surely as that's
> the collector's edition, then the director's original intention is to have
> the film at the ratio intended on the LD and DVD (approx 1.85:1)
>
AFAIK the original ratio, as approved by the director on the recent Special
EditionLD, is 1.85:1. However, its quite possible that the full screen version is
unmatted
1.85:1 (this works like a crude version of Super 35, and is not that uncommon).
Such practice can sometimes lead to strange things, like boom mikes and other bits
of filming
equipment (only) just outside the field of view making an appearance.
If this is the case, then yes, sticking black tape on your TV would have the same
effect,
as the full screen picture would have been created by removing some similar black
bars.
Simon
.
Gary Couzens
Dom wrote in message <919737...@festive.demon.co.uk>...
>Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
>open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
>doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>
I would agree with you, myself. But if Super 35 allows you to compose a
picture *in Scope* in the cinema but also enables you to produce a TV print
that's not unwatchable, then I think that's an acceptable compromise. A good
example is "Six Degrees of Separation", a Super 35 film which BBC2 showed in
a full-screen version on Friday night.
There are directors and DPs who prefer shooting with anamorphic lenses, for
the look, the better grain, etc. (Super 35 tends to produce a "sharp" look
that might not be appropriate to all subjects, although I happen to like
it.) Each to their own, but most anamorphic films have to be composed with
TV in mind, more or less blatantly. (This is one reason why I don't go along
with Film Comment, who in a recent profile described John Carpenter, who
shoots all his cinema films in anamorphic, as "the widescreen master of
contemporary cinema".)
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke
> In article <1dnmg2h.1le...@everyman.demon.co.uk>
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) writes:
> >Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Why couldn't they source a widescreen print though? One certainly exists.
> >
> >As someone complained on alt.cult-movies, a "widescreen" print of 'Evil
> >Dead II' is merely be a full-frame print with part of the picture masked
> >off. He'd already bought a copy of the 4:3 version, so was able to do a
> >comparison between the copies - and discovered that the widescreen
> >version offered less visual information than his original copy.
>
> Why is there a widescreen NTSC LD and DVD available then? Surely as that's
> the collector's edition, then the director's original intention is to have
> the film at the ratio intended on the LD and DVD (approx 1.85:1)
>
> Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
> open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
> doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
Indeed not, but we're not talking about 'Se7en', are we? Though the
same director's 'The Game' was perfectly watchable on 4:3 video when I
caught up with it the other month.
> >So anyone who wants a widescreen version simply has to tape bits of
> >black paper on the top and bottom of their screens - that should do the
> >job admirably!
>
> You don't like widescreen at all do you?
Don't be ridiculous - you only have to glance over my video collection
to see the idiocy of that comment.
If a widescreen version of a film is available, that's invariably the
version I go for - but if a widescreen version *isn't* available, I
don't automatically say "well, the other version must automatically be
unwatchable crap", because it's often absolutely fine. With some films,
maintaining the original picture composition is absolutely essential -
but with others, it really doesn't matter unless you're one of those
anal purists who are more concerned about technical matters than about
minor things like story, acting, etc.
Just to illustrate, I snapped up 'Showgirls' (very cheaply, I'd better
stress) the other week, and despite the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in the
cinema, I honestly couldn't spot a *single* shot where I felt I'd been
disadvantaged by the reduction to 4:3. And believe me, I've seen plenty
of films rendered genuinely unwatchable by panning-and-scanning!
Steve Erickson
<gjco...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Dom wrote in message <919737...@festive.demon.co.uk>...
>
> >Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
> >open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
> >doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
> >
> I would agree with you, myself. But if Super 35 allows you to compose a
> picture *in Scope* in the cinema but also enables you to produce a TV print
> that's not unwatchable, then I think that's an acceptable compromise. A good
> example is "Six Degrees of Separation", a Super 35 film which BBC2 showed in
> a full-screen version on Friday night.
>
> There are directors and DPs who prefer shooting with anamorphic lenses, for
> the look, the better grain, etc. (Super 35 tends to produce a "sharp" look
> that might not be appropriate to all subjects, although I happen to like
> it.) Each to their own, but most anamorphic films have to be composed with
> TV in mind, more or less blatantly. (This is one reason why I don't go along
> with Film Comment, who in a recent profile described John Carpenter, who
> shoots all his cinema films in anamorphic, as "the widescreen master of
> contemporary cinema".)
Don't you find this somewhat depressing? I love the way many 50s films use
every inch of the widescreen frame and don't see much point to the way so
many contemporary widescreen films fill the left and righthand 10% with
empty space. (The final scene of RUSHMORE and the scene on the boat in
LAMERICA are rare recent examples of 'Scope compositions that really fill
the screen with information.) If filmmakers are going to frame their films
with the TV screen in mind, shouldn't they go back to 1:33?
--
Steve Erickson
Remove "nospam" to reply.
http://home.earthlink.net/~steevee
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
<1dnoall.1xs...@everyman.demon.co.uk>...
>Dom <mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a
complete
>> open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true,
it
>> doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>
>Indeed not, but we're not talking about 'Se7en', are we? Though the
>same director's 'The Game' was perfectly watchable on 4:3 video when I
>caught up with it the other month.
>
That's another Super 35 film. I should add that "Six Degrees of Separation"
(also Super 35) was perfectly watchable in fullscreen.
It took British TV a while to catch up with Super 35 - about ten years ago,
they'd simply pan & scan a theatrical print (the same as they would with an
anamorphically-shot film) with dire results. If memory serves, "Silverado"
had this done to it the first time it was shown; the second time, the BBC
found a fullscreen print, as was the whole point to Super 35 anyway.
>Just to illustrate, I snapped up 'Showgirls' (very cheaply, I'd better
>stress) the other week, and despite the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in the
>cinema, I honestly couldn't spot a *single* shot where I felt I'd been
>disadvantaged by the reduction to 4:3.
Another film in Super 35.
And believe me, I've seen plenty
>of films rendered genuinely unwatchable by panning-and-scanning!
>
>Michael
So have I - a late example being "Two-Lane Blacktop".
Gary Couzens
Gary Couzens
Steve Erickson wrote in message ...
>In article <7atpmo$cdr$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Gary Couzens"
><gjco...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Dom wrote in message <919737...@festive.demon.co.uk>...
>>
complete
>> >open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true,
it
>> >doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>> >
seen "8mm" (Super 35), and there are several shots in that which wouldn't
fit well on a TV set if you simply panned and scanned the cinema print. I
suspect it'll look fine in fullscreen, apart from the fact that it's low-lit
in places (though not as dark as "Se7en").
It's worth adding that many directors prefer 1.85:1 (or 1.75:1 or 1.66:1, if
they're European and/or play to arthouses) and that's fine too - the test
is how well a filmmaker uses the materials to hand.
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke
> Steve Erickson wrote in message ...
> >In article <7atpmo$cdr$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Gary Couzens"
> >
> >Don't you find this somewhat depressing?
In a word, yes - but unfortunately I can also see the economic reasons
for the current situation.
> I love the way many 50s films use
> >every inch of the widescreen frame and don't see much point to the way so
> >many contemporary widescreen films fill the left and righthand 10% with
> >empty space. (The final scene of RUSHMORE and the scene on the boat in
> >LAMERICA are rare recent examples of 'Scope compositions that really fill
> >the screen with information.) If filmmakers are going to frame their films
> >with the TV screen in mind, shouldn't they go back to 1:33?
The problem is, they can't! Most cinemas can't show 1.33:1 any more
(which is why Disney has adopted a policy of inverse letterboxing its
1930s/1940s classics - showing the 1.33:1 picture within a 1.85:1
frame), and the only current director I can think of who almost
invariably uses just that ratio (28 out of 29 films) is Jan Svankmajer,
whose films have never exactly been given a general release.
Unfortunately, the range of necessary aspect ratios is so wide that it's
almost impossible to shoot a film in such a way that it's *certain* to
be shown "correctly" both theatrically and on video. The best the
director and cinematographer can do is make sure that the damage is
minimised - though '8mm' (described below) is a rather extreme example:
I spent much of the film wondering why they'd bothered with 2.35:1
because so little of the frame had been used!
> I haven't seen either of your examples, but I take your point. I've just
> seen "8mm" (Super 35), and there are several shots in that which wouldn't
> fit well on a TV set if you simply panned and scanned the cinema print. I
> suspect it'll look fine in fullscreen, apart from the fact that it's low-lit
> in places (though not as dark as "Se7en").
You beat me to it! I imagine I was in exactly the same screening, and
because much of the film bored me rigid I had plenty of time to study
the compositions, and I'm not sure I entirely agree with you - because
to me it seemed that almost *every* shot (the only major exceptions
being ones with rapid movement, and there were very few of those: it's a
very slow, ponderous film) could be recomposed to 4:3 without losing
anything significant.
I cottoned onto this very early on in the film, and as it progressed the
amount of totally dead space on the screen (by which I mean space that
wasn't being used *at all* in any dramatic sense, except to pad out the
frame) actually started to get as oppressive as the rest of the film.
I'd go further than Gary - I'd say that the fullscreen video version
would probably be a distinct improvement on a letterboxed version. The
latter would fill something like 75% of the TV screen either with blank
space or unused space, leaving a relatively tiny window for the actors.
>
> It's worth adding that many directors prefer 1.85:1 (or 1.75:1 or 1.66:1, if
> they're European and/or play to arthouses) and that's fine too - the test
> is how well a filmmaker uses the materials to hand.
Exactly - and some directors like Luc Besson, Michael Mann and Lars Von
Trier have made memorable use of 2.35:1 in recent years (to the extent
that films like 'Europa', 'Heat' and 'Nikita' genuinely do defy
reduction to 4:3). But what I find depressing is the way that very few
film-makers have the courage to go all-out in terms of ultra-wide aspect
ratios - though I can understand the economic arguments against it.
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
going to frame their films
>> >with the TV screen in mind, shouldn't they go back to 1:33?
>
>The problem is, they can't! Most cinemas can't show 1.33:1 any more
>(which is why Disney has adopted a policy of inverse letterboxing its
>1930s/1940s classics - showing the 1.33:1 picture within a 1.85:1
>frame), and the only current director I can think of who almost
>invariably uses just that ratio (28 out of 29 films) is Jan Svankmajer,
>whose films have never exactly been given a general release.
>
in 1.66:1 (if not "A Good Marriage" then certainly "Pauline at the Beach")
and he's used 1.33:1 occasionally since (usually for his films shot in 16mm
like "The Green Ray").
'8mm' (described below) is a rather extreme example:
>I spent much of the film wondering why they'd bothered with 2.35:1
>because so little of the frame had been used!
>
. I've just
>> seen "8mm" (Super 35), and there are several shots in that which wouldn't
>> fit well on a TV set if you simply panned and scanned the cinema print. I
>> suspect it'll look fine in fullscreen, apart from the fact that it's
low-lit
>> in places (though not as dark as "Se7en").
>
>You beat me to it! I imagine I was in exactly the same screening, and
>because much of the film bored me rigid I had plenty of time to study
>the compositions, and I'm not sure I entirely agree with you - because
>to me it seemed that almost *every* shot (the only major exceptions
>being ones with rapid movement, and there were very few of those: it's a
>very slow, ponderous film)
dour, humourless (apart from Joaquin Phoenix's performance), derivative
(Millennium sprang to mind) and some of the clips within the film might have
problems with the BBFC
could be recomposed to 4:3 without losing
>anything significant.
>
Not sure I agree: there were several shots (conversations) with characters a
little too far apart for 4:3. I suspect the dead space is more to do with
Joel Schumacher's slack direction than the Scope process.
I should add that some directors use Scope precisely to *emphasise* empty
space, isolation etc. "Klute" is a good example. Not that I'm suggesting
Schumacher is on a par with the late Alan Pakula - far from it!
>I'd go further than Gary - I'd say that the fullscreen video version
>would probably be a distinct improvement on a letterboxed version. The
>latter would fill something like 75% of the TV screen either with blank
>space or unused space, leaving a relatively tiny window for the actors.
>
The fullscreen video will add about 50% of dead space above and below,
having being shot in Super 35. (I've got into the habit of checking which
format a Scope film is shot in, partly so I can send corrections to Sight &
Sound :-) If you know what you're looking for, it doesn't take long to
distinguish Super 35 and anamorphic.)
Gary Couzens
Luis Canau
[...]
>Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
>open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
>doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
Not the version that's available in Portugal. There's the normal +40% cut on
the image wherever there's a single head or object on screen, and a lot of
floor and pants (f&p) when two people have to be shown (a shoot with Pitt and
Freeman, side by side in the police station, is a good example, and they are
still a bit cut on their backs). There are several bits on the sides that
"matter" that had to be cut. In the end for instance, there's a scene where
you only have half of Doe. (I only saw part of the fullscreen edition in fast
forward) This movie is composed to 2.35:1 without caring for the TV screen in
my opinion. I'd say that Fincher left that to the guys responsible for the
fullscreen transfer.
Luis Canau
frame for a "good" video version.
The microphones I see are in the full frame videos of films as "Secrets and
Lies", "Eat Drink Man Woman". Recently, on the cinema, "Kanzo Sensei" AKA "Dr.
Akagi" AKA "Dr Liver" (Shohei Imamura) was projected at 1.66:1 and I saw about
4 mikes, some projectors(!!) and a bunch of annoying popping camera mattes.
The same people that "didn't see anything", not even the "blinking black bar
effect", would complain with black bars on TV...
Judging from "Blackout", Ferrara does shot fullframe but doesn't care for it.
There's a mike in the mirror of the bathroom. An outside scene in a car shows
things above and below. Far out. This projection was in 133.1! Yup, we have a
lot of blind projectionists. Things are getting better very very slowly as
complaints are made.
Gary Couzens
Luis Canau wrote in message <36d62758...@news.telepac.pt>...
>mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk (Dom) escreveu:
>[...]
>>Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
>>open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true,
it
>>doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>
>Not the version that's available in Portugal. There's the normal +40% cut
on
>the image wherever there's a single head or object on screen, and a lot of
>floor and pants (f&p) when two people have to be shown (a shoot with Pitt
and
>Freeman, side by side in the police station, is a good example, and they
are
>still a bit cut on their backs). There are several bits on the sides that
>"matter" that had to be cut. In the end for instance, there's a scene where
>you only have half of Doe. (I only saw part of the fullscreen edition in
fast
>forward) This movie is composed to 2.35:1 without caring for the TV screen
in
>my opinion. I'd say that Fincher left that to the guys responsible for the
>fullscreen transfer.
>
mentioned earlier - TV and video companies,through ignorance, panning and
scanning a cinema print instead of doing what was intended - going back to
the original materials and striking a full-screen print containing *all* the
cinema picture plus extra material above and below. (Sometimes full-screen
and Scope versions share the same top line, so the extra picture would be
all below what was seen in the cinema.) To do otherwise defeats the object
of Super 35. Perhaps you could point this out to the Portuguese video
distributor...
How a director chooses to compose their shots is up to them, but in Super 35
they do have the option of framing "wide" and to still be able to produce a
fullscreen version that's watchable on TV.
Gary Couzens
Dom
Luis....@mail.EUnot.pt (Luis Canau) writes:
>mcc...@festive.demon.co.uk (Dom) escreveu:
>[...]
>>Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
>>open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true, it
>>doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>
>Not the version that's available in Portugal. There's the normal +40% cut on
>the image wherever there's a single head or object on screen, and a lot of
>floor and pants (f&p) when two people have to be shown (a shoot with Pitt and
>Freeman, side by side in the police station, is a good example, and they are
Ah, I remember now from what I was told, that for scenes where just one person
or object is present, then the screen is filled with that face/object/whatever,
but aside from that the rest is a fullscreen transfer.
>still a bit cut on their backs). There are several bits on the sides that
>"matter" that had to be cut. In the end for instance, there's a scene where
>you only have half of Doe. (I only saw part of the fullscreen edition in fast
>forward) This movie is composed to 2.35:1 without caring for the TV screen in
>my opinion. I'd say that Fincher left that to the guys responsible for the
>fullscreen transfer.
It can go both ways, but they usually seem left in the hands of an idiotic
telecine operator on a wet Thursday afternoon.
Dom
"Gary Couzens" <gjco...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
>Luis Canau wrote in message <36d62758...@news.telepac.pt>...
>>[...]
>>>Apparently the fullscreen version of Se7en (a super-35 film) is a complete
>>>open-matte job with no loss of information at the sides. If that's true,
>it
>>>doesn't mean that it's the best version to watch.
>>
>>Not the version that's available in Portugal. There's the normal +40% cut
>on
>>the image wherever there's a single head or object on screen, and a lot of
>>floor and pants (f&p) when two people have to be shown (a shoot with Pitt
>and
>>Freeman, side by side in the police station, is a good example, and they
>are
>>"matter" that had to be cut. In the end for instance, there's a scene where
>>you only have half of Doe. (I only saw part of the fullscreen edition in
>fast
>>forward) This movie is composed to 2.35:1 without caring for the TV screen
>in
>>my opinion. I'd say that Fincher left that to the guys responsible for the
>>fullscreen transfer.
>>
>mentioned earlier - TV and video companies,through ignorance, panning and
>scanning a cinema print instead of doing what was intended - going back to
Precisely. The TV studios don't care. It's just something to fill between the
ads or self-promotions.
Peter Munford
liquid.
I suppose the BBFC thought that as all britons are stupid apart from
themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
after watching the movie.
when the movie premiered on channel 4 they accidentally showed it uncut.
But all subsequent screenings have been cut as well as all versions of
the movie on tape.
I have no idea about Sky though.
Hope this is of help
--
Peter Munford/Bunkadoo
____________________________________________________
| Bunkie's Horror Heaven : |
| http://members.tripod.com/bunkadoo |
|____________________________________________________|
Gary Dale
>themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
>after watching the movie.
I know I would.
Dom
Peter Munford <bun...@lineone.net> writes:
>the cuts were made to the scene featuring the rat in the breathing
>liquid.
>
>themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
>after watching the movie.
>
>But all subsequent screenings have been cut as well as all versions of
>the movie on tape.
>
>I have no idea about Sky though.
They'd have to show the cut version too, but then they cut stuff anyway so
it's nowt new to them.
Dom
*** NINJA / ARMAGEDDON / BOXER / TRAINSPOTTING / LINKS LS 99 / BRITS 99 ***
Michael Brooke
> the cuts were made to the scene featuring the rat in the breathing
> liquid.
>
> I suppose the BBFC thought that as all britons are stupid apart from
> themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
> after watching the movie.
No, it's because that scene was deemed to contravene the 1937 Animals
Act. Film-makers have to prove to the satisfaction of the BBFC that the
animal in question was not actually harmed during shooting - presumably
the distributors of 'The Abyss' were unable to do so. The BBFC's hands
are tied in these cases - the laws regarding the treatment of children
and animals are extremely strict, and the BBFC is required to make sure
that any films it approves do not contravene these laws.
That said, if the animal in question genuinely wasn't harmed, the BBFC
are perfectly happy to pass such material. When I worked for a
distribution company, we submitted a film called 'Celia' to the BBFC,
which queried a scene in which a rabbit appeared to be tortured with a
red hot poker. In this case, though, the (Australian) production
company were able to provide back-up evidence that the rabbit was not in
fact harmed - either the poker or the rabbit was fake depending on the
shot in question. This scene therefore did not contravene the Animals
Act and was allowed through.
(When Adrian Lyne made 'Lolita', he made sure that every single
potentially contentious scene was thoroughly photographed and videoed
from every conceivable angle just in case he ever had to prove its
innocence!)
>
> when the movie premiered on channel 4 they accidentally showed it uncut.
> But all subsequent screenings have been cut as well as all versions of
> the movie on tape.
>
> I have no idea about Sky though.
It should be exactly the same version, for the same reasons.
Peter Munford
Movie Database I found this in the trivia section.
"Fluid breathing is a reality. Five rats were used for five different
takes, all of whom survived and were given shots by a vet. The rat that
actually appeared in the film died a few weeks before the film opened"
So either the UK distributors did not have access to evidence to show
the rats were treated humanely or they couldnt be bothered to spend time
and money disputing 45 seconds of a 2 hour 20 minute film with the BBFC.
The latter would seem more likely.
No source is given for the IMDB info so I could be wrong but if it is
not I would think that rats were treated properly.
--
Peter Munford/Bunkadoo
____________________________________________________
| Bunkie's Horror Heaven : |
| http://members.tripod.com/bunkadoo |
|____________________________________________________|
--
Luis Canau
>I've not seen "Se7en" on video, but this sounds like an example of what I
>mentioned earlier - TV and video companies,through ignorance, panning and
>scanning a cinema print instead of doing what was intended - going back to
>the original materials and striking a full-screen print containing *all* the
>cinema picture plus extra material above and below. [...]
I must stress that Portuguese companies and TV station don't do nothing
themselves. They use the material that's sent to them by the distributor.
Normally American. Video and TV versions are normally the same (since,
obviously, there's no censorship in either medium). So I'd say this is the
"official" fullscreen "Se7en".
>(Sometimes full-screen
>and Scope versions share the same top line, so the extra picture would be
>all below what was seen in the cinema.) To do otherwise defeats the object
>of Super 35.
"Se7en" seems to be in that way. A bit extra image above but most of it below.
This seems to be more frequent in Super35 because it's easier to control
microphones, right? This also shows that people shouldn't believe there's much
elaboration on the making of this copies, like "composing" also for 4:3. They
just make sure the screen can be filled. Of course, particularly with 2.35:1
real scope, many films are shot without dispersing too much the action for a
not-so-atrocious fullscreen video...
But as I stressed, only some shots where "conventionally" panned and scanned.
And judging from the comparative shots I saw from ID4, I'd say this is very
frequent. When there's a single object or face and it can be used to fill the
screen, they just cut around it.
>Perhaps you could point this out to the Portuguese video
>distributor...
I point out that I don't buy any fullscreen films except if they're meant to
be fullscreen :-) But as I said they just burp the American distributor lunch.
For instance, we have a bunch of American dubbed in English versions of HK
films (mainly Jackie Chan). Makes a lot of sense, right? They dub and "we"
subtitle the dubbed version. If it's an art film it's different...
>How a director chooses to compose their shots is up to them, but in Super 35
>they do have the option of framing "wide" and to still be able to produce a
>fullscreen version that's watchable on TV.
Indeed, when you can't stand black bars. Peter Jackson also praised Super35
but I don't think we were supposed to see the elevator that made the bed float
in The Frightener. They don't always care for the fullscreen result - in spite
of assuming that the movie will not have half of the image cut in the more
widely distributed video copies - and that's good. It means we can get a
decent composition in the theatre.
Gareth Young
-Nick wrote in message <36d305a...@news.freeserve.co.uk>...
>
>Uncut version of The Abyss? What's different in it?
>
>Does Sky show it uncut?
>
>Is it uncut on video? Normal or "Special" edition on video? I might
>have to rent it.
>
>--Nick.
it's the bit where a rat is dropped into liquid.
in other words nothing worth seeking out.
G.Young video sales.
Want to buy ex rental horror and martial arts films for only £5?
live in uk or europe?
email me for a list!
Michael Brooke
>
> I point out that I don't buy any fullscreen films except if they're meant to
> be fullscreen :-) But as I said they just burp the American distributor lunch.
> For instance, we have a bunch of American dubbed in English versions of HK
> films (mainly Jackie Chan). Makes a lot of sense, right? They dub and "we"
> subtitle the dubbed version.
With the exception of his American films, *all* Jackie Chan films are
dubbed, regardless of whether you're watching a Mandarin, Cantonese,
English or indeed Portuguese version - and with his early films he
didn't even dub his own voice. I've got several dual-language
(Mandarin/Cantonese) Video CDs of Jackie Chan films, and it's obvious
that both versions are dubbed. Chan himself has gone on record as
saying that he prefers the English version of 'Supercop' (aka 'Police
Story III').
In any case, since I don't speak a word of Cantonese or Mandarin (in
over a decade of watching HK films, "sifu" is just about the only thing
I've picked up!), it makes absolutely no difference to me whether or not
it's dubbed into English, given that the films are hardly renowned for
linguistic subtlety (and even if they were, the subtitles don't exactly
convey this!).
In fact, the dubbed English version of 'Drunken Master' is superior to
the subtitled version in every respect - for one thing, it's a few
minutes longer, and letterboxed (the HK version even crops the English
subtitles!).
Michael Brooke
> after making my post I had a look at the abyss page of the Internet
> Movie Database I found this in the trivia section.
>
> "Fluid breathing is a reality. Five rats were used for five different
> takes, all of whom survived and were given shots by a vet. The rat that
> actually appeared in the film died a few weeks before the film opened"
>
> So either the UK distributors did not have access to evidence to show
> the rats were treated humanely or they couldnt be bothered to spend time
> and money disputing 45 seconds of a 2 hour 20 minute film with the BBFC.
>
> The latter would seem more likely.
Almost certainly, given that 'The Abyss', like most Cameron films, ran
badly over schedule to the extent that the chairman of 20th Century Fox
said that he might have to personally go to every single cinema that
booked the film and tell the audience the story for two hours!
But that's down to the distributor - the BBFC in this case is merely
applying the law of the land.
Dom
nickSPAMM...@SPAMMENOTsofthome.net (Nick) writes:
>Goodness gracious me! mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke)
>said this, and it was the most shocking thing ever (unconfirmed).
>Look:
>
>>Just to illustrate, I snapped up 'Showgirls' (very cheaply, I'd better
>>stress) the other week, and despite the 2.35:1 aspect ratio in the
>>cinema, I honestly couldn't spot a *single* shot where I felt I'd been
>>of films rendered genuinely unwatchable by panning-and-scanning!
>
>talking (where Picard tells data to deactivate his emotion chip) where
>there is a true crime of 4:3 TV.
>
>I rented the video out, and hated that scene, it panned over to picard
>and you really couldn't see what data was doing. But in the 2.35:1
>version I've got in the ST Box Set it looks fine.
>
>There was a good thing in the 4:3 version though. When the Borg Queen
>blows on Data's new skin path on his arm, you can see the detail, and
>what's happening. But, on the 2.35:1 version, there just isn't enough
>detail there to see what's happening. Higher resolution TV needed!
Anamorphic DVD needed.
>The anamorphic version on Sky Premier Widescreen looks "okay" on that
>scene, but still not as good as it was in the cinema.
Well, when the cinema has about 10x the resolution available to you at home,
it's hardly surprising.
That said, the PAL Laserdisc of this film is outstanding.
Review at the usual address below.
Dom
**** ADDICTED TO MURDER 2 / NINJA / ARMAGEDDON / BOXER / TRAINSPOTTING ****
Richard Tibbetts
>the cuts were made to the scene featuring the rat in the breathing
>liquid.
>
>I suppose the BBFC thought that as all britons are stupid apart from
>themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
>after watching the movie.
>
>when the movie premiered on channel 4 they accidentally showed it uncut.
>But all subsequent screenings have been cut as well as all versions of
>the movie on tape.
>
>I have no idea about Sky though.
>
>Hope this is of help
I saw this scene on an airplane to somewhere - I remember (being
familiar with the film) being very surprised!
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.ppeace.demon.co.uk/
David Gillies
> Peter Munford <bun...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> the cuts were made to the scene featuring the rat in the breathing
>> liquid.
>>
>> I suppose the BBFC thought that as all britons are stupid apart from
>> themselves then we would all immediately go off and drown our pet mice
>> after watching the movie.
> No, it's because that scene was deemed to contravene the 1937 Animals
> Act. Film-makers have to prove to the satisfaction of the BBFC that the
> animal in question was not actually harmed during shooting - presumably
> the distributors of 'The Abyss' were unable to do so. The BBFC's hands
> are tied in these cases - the laws regarding the treatment of children
> and animals are extremely strict, and the BBFC is required to make sure
> that any films it approves do not contravene these laws.
> That said, if the animal in question genuinely wasn't harmed, the BBFC
> are perfectly happy to pass such material. When I worked for a
> distribution company, we submitted a film called 'Celia' to the BBFC,
> which queried a scene in which a rabbit appeared to be tortured with a
> red hot poker. In this case, though, the (Australian) production
> company were able to provide back-up evidence that the rabbit was not in
> fact harmed - either the poker or the rabbit was fake depending on the
> shot in question. This scene therefore did not contravene the Animals
> Act and was allowed through.
But what about, for example, Salon Kitty, which was shown as part of
the Censored weekend? There was a scene in a slaughterhouse where a
pig was quite definitely harmed. I mean, having your throat cut and then
being hacked in two with a cleaver is a lot more traumatic than being
stuck in a jar of Freon. What about The Deer Hunter? Is it OK to show
animals that are going to get killed anyway? So pigs are OK, but
dogs aren't (unless you're in Korea!).
--
______________________________________________________________________
David A. G. Gillies (da...@vader.eeng.brad.ac.uk)
University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England
Giving money and power to government is like
giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.
[P. J. O'Rourke]
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Ray Girvan
> But what about, for example, Salon Kitty, which was shown as part of
> the Censored weekend? There was a scene in a slaughterhouse where a
> pig was quite definitely harmed ... What about The Deer Hunter?
And the cow/bull hacked to death in "Apocalypse Now". ISTR from the
credits that Coppola's get-out was that it was footage of the
authentic rituals of the ... [name forgotten] ... tribe.
A vaguely connected thought: went to a talk by Angela ("Land Girls")
Huth last week. She commented on how it cost 6000 quid to make a
not-very-convincing plastic dead cow for the film (short shot of cow
lying dead, splatted by crashed aeroplane) and wondered why they
didn't just get a real carcase for a few quid from the local abattoir.
Ray
--
ray.g...@zetnet.co.uk +++ Technical Author +++ Topsham, Devon, UK
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rgirvan/ +++ The Apothecary's Drawer
matthew
thirty innocent rabbits get shot. Horrible it is. Horrible! Where was
Ferman to protect me then?
Then there's the bull in Apocalypse Now, (now i've said that someone
will tell me it was a muppet) and I bet hundreds of other examples. I
guess it just supports the inconsistent nature of the BBFC.
> David A. G. Gillies wrote :
> But what about, for example, Salon Kitty, which was shown as part of
> the Censored weekend? There was a scene in a slaughterhouse where a
> pig was quite definitely harmed. I mean, having your throat cut and then
> being hacked in two with a cleaver is a lot more traumatic than being
> stuck in a jar of Freon. What about The Deer Hunter? Is it OK to show
> animals that are going to get killed anyway? So pigs are OK, but
> dogs aren't (unless you're in Korea!).
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________________________
(da...@vader.eeng.brad.ac.uk)
> University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England
>
> Giving money and power to government is like
> giving whisky and car keys to teenage boys.
> [P. J. O'Rourke]
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--
===================================================
"i've been too honest with myself;
i should have lied like everybody else"
[faster, manic street preachers]
Michael Brooke
> Ever see Renoir's Rules of the Game? Hailed as a masterpiece. About
> thirty innocent rabbits get shot. Horrible it is. Horrible! Where was
> Ferman to protect me then?
Probably still at school, given the film's original release date...
> Then there's the bull in Apocalypse Now, (now i've said that someone
> will tell me it was a muppet) and I bet hundreds of other examples. I
> guess it just supports the inconsistent nature of the BBFC.
The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act explicitly proscribes scenes where
suffering is caused to animals. One possible interpretation of that -
which the BBFC seems to have followed - is that animal torture is
unacceptable, but a quick, clean kill is acceptable.
So the BBFC are being consistent, if from a somewhat warped worldview
(though it should be pointed out that the BBFC generally doesn't *want*
to cut films that contravene the Animals Act and the Protection of
Children Act - and generally only does so when the scene in question
clearly and unambiguously breaches either Act).
Steve Erickson
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act explicitly proscribes scenes where
> suffering is caused to animals. One possible interpretation of that -
> which the BBFC seems to have followed - is that animal torture is
> unacceptable, but a quick, clean kill is acceptable.
>
> So the BBFC are being consistent, if from a somewhat warped worldview
> (though it should be pointed out that the BBFC generally doesn't *want*
> to cut films that contravene the Animals Act and the Protection of
> Children Act - and generally only does so when the scene in question
> clearly and unambiguously breaches either Act).
I can think of at least one other landmark film - Eisenstein's STRIKE -
that shows animal killings. Does the BBFC have a problem with this film? Is
simulated animal torture - as in GUMMO and the Hungarian film SATANTANGO -
allowed?
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke wrote in message
>matthew <mc...@ukc.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ever see Renoir's Rules of the Game? Hailed as a masterpiece. About
>> thirty innocent rabbits get shot. Horrible it is. Horrible! Where was
>> Ferman to protect me then?
>
>Probably still at school, given the film's original release date...
>
on this precise case, but see below.
>> Then there's the bull in Apocalypse Now, (now i've said that someone
>> will tell me it was a muppet) and I bet hundreds of other examples. I
>> guess it just supports the inconsistent nature of the BBFC.
>
>The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act explicitly proscribes scenes where
>suffering is caused to animals. One possible interpretation of that -
>which the BBFC seems to have followed - is that animal torture is
>unacceptable, but a quick, clean kill is acceptable.
>
The Animals Act proscribes scenes involving suffering to animals *where that
is in the control of the filmmaker*. Documentary footage, or scenes in
fictional films where the suffering/killing would have taken place whether
or not the camera was there to record it, is exempted. Otherwise "The
Animals Film" (passed AA in the early 1980s) would have been rejected in its
entirety!
I presume in these cases, the distributors/filmmakers have to provide proof,
affidavits etc.
The bull-killing in "Apocalypse Now" was a genuine tribal ceremony which was
filmed, but not staged for the camera. If it *had* been staged for the
camera with a live bull, not only would the BBFC have to cut the scene, but
the American Humane Association would have protested.
(One film which the AHA did complain about was "Ulzana's Raid", which the
BBFC has cut to remove some horses brought down by illegal methods such as
tripwires and pits in the ground.)
Gary Couzens
Michael Brooke
> I can think of at least one other landmark film - Eisenstein's STRIKE -
> that shows animal killings. Does the BBFC have a problem with this film?
I've no idea - you'd have to ask them, or the film's video distributor.
Since 'Strike' has never had a BBFC theatrical certificate, and since
that's the only version I've seen, I can't speak for it.
Of course, with silent films it's absolutely impossible to tell from the
running time whether or not something has been cut!
>Is
> simulated animal torture - as in GUMMO and the Hungarian film SATANTANGO -
> allowed?
If the producer of the film can prove that it was simulated, it is.
I can't speak for 'Gummo', but I can speak for an Australian film called
'Celia' in which a rabbit appeared to be tortured (I was working for its
distributor at the time). The BBFC made it clear that while they
admired the film, the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act dictated
that the scene with the rabbit would have to go unless we could prove
that it was simulated. As it happens, the Australian production company
*could* prove it - the actual close-up of the rabbit being branded was
faked - so the scene was passed. I imagine the situation in 'Gummo' was
similar.
Steve Erickson
mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
> Steve Erickson <ste...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Is
> > simulated animal torture - as in GUMMO and the Hungarian film SATANTANGO -
> > allowed?
>
> If the producer of the film can prove that it was simulated, it is.
When I interviewed SATANTANGO director Bela Tarr, he confirmed that it was
simulated and that the cat involved is his own pet. However, the scene is
convincing enough that several of my friends refuse to believe this. When
it played at Berkely's Pacific Film Archive, the theater put up a warning
that it contained "Graphic scenes of animal cruelty."
Simon Arnold
Steve Erickson wrote:
> In article <1do3a45.gq...@everyman.demon.co.uk>,
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> > The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act explicitly proscribes scenes where
> > suffering is caused to animals. One possible interpretation of that -
> > which the BBFC seems to have followed - is that animal torture is
> > unacceptable, but a quick, clean kill is acceptable.
> >
> > So the BBFC are being consistent, if from a somewhat warped worldview
> > (though it should be pointed out that the BBFC generally doesn't *want*
> > to cut films that contravene the Animals Act and the Protection of
> > Children Act - and generally only does so when the scene in question
> > clearly and unambiguously breaches either Act).
>
> I can think of at least one other landmark film - Eisenstein's STRIKE -
> that shows animal killings. Does the BBFC have a problem with this film? Is
> simulated animal torture - as in GUMMO and the Hungarian film SATANTANGO -
> allowed?
I recall that in the case of 'Gummo', the BBFC were reported as having checked
that the cat scenes were all simulated. I guess that they found it OK - as the
film
was passed uncut 18 for cinema and video.
Simon
Michael Brooke
> In article <1do3v7o.onn...@everyman.demon.co.uk>,
> mic...@everyman.demon.co.uk (Michael Brooke) wrote:
>
> > Steve Erickson <ste...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Is
> > > simulated animal torture - as in GUMMO and the Hungarian film SATANTANGO -
> > > allowed?
> >
> > If the producer of the film can prove that it was simulated, it is.
>
> When I interviewed SATANTANGO director Bela Tarr, he confirmed that it was
> simulated and that the cat involved is his own pet. However, the scene is
> convincing enough that several of my friends refuse to believe this. When
> it played at Berkely's Pacific Film Archive, the theater put up a warning
> that it contained "Graphic scenes of animal cruelty."
As far as UK law is concerned, it doesn't matter how convincing the
scene is provided the film-maker (or a representative) can prove that it
was faked to the satisfaction of the BBFC - and of course provided that
there are no other potential problems within that scene (in other words,
the animal torture is justified by the context - as it was in 'Celia' -
and not just there to provide a cheap thrill).