, which made the later descent sequence much more believable 
, and was always surprised to see it was cut in the home DVD release. if i remember right, they cut it so the rat is put in the water, but then the rest of the scene is the actors talking, and you don't see the rat again until it's out of the water,
not just for how easy and relatively cheap (?) it would be to do it, but they are losing a lot of potential UK revenue as a result. arse backwards decisions. 
Every UK release including in cinemas has been cut by around 45 seconds, they partially achieved this by reframing the image so the rat struggling was not shown on screen, but you could see people reacting to it. I think a lot of people's brains are filling in the blanks and they swear they saw stuff that wasn't there, like the shower scene in Psycho.
Appreciate this explanation, thank you. Good decision. No room for animal cruelty within art
I hear you. Not anymore, that's understandable.
If "Filmmaking ethics and morality has evolved", then clearly some within the filmmaking industry haven't evolved enough to understand that what was offensive to people who care about animal cruelty in previous years, is equally, if not more offensive, to people that care about animal cruelty now. The fact that the act happened decades ago is a mute point. Time passing by, does not relieve or detract from atrocities within history.
Whilst I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you on your views of historical cancel culture. There's no need. We've learnt from it. What's done is done. End of story. By holding onto the past angers only begets more anger for the future. At some point what has been learnt is good enough.
You've moved away from discussion on the movie.Whilst I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you on your views of historical cancel culture. There's no need. We've learnt from it. What's done is done. End of story. By holding onto the past angers only begets more anger for the future. At some point what has been learnt is good enough.
Allowing the erasure of the past, would certainly call for the loss of many countless works of art. Are we supposed to wipe all that learnt history of the face of the earth?
History has been written in blood, pain and human misery. It's also given way to the most beautiful, awe-inspiring gifts of art and culture. Themselves stained with the same brush.
Enlightenment. You got to forgive not hold onto fear and anger.
Anyway. I don't agree but hey, that's life. One day we'll all move forward together.
Otherwise we're f**ked
It isn't that I disagree with your point on history and erasure, especially regarding learning from it, but not sure it's directly comparable. What we probably haven't visited enough in the discussion is actually in making this art the EXISTING law at the time was broken to facilitate making the scene, the consequence of breaking that law was a request to change the scene which is probably reasonable and should be considered a 'slap on the wrist', it isn't as if the BBFC enforced cancellation of the movie.Whilst I respect your opinion. I don't agree with you on your views of historical cancel culture. There's no need. We've learnt from it. What's done is done. End of story. By holding onto the past angers only begets more anger for the future. At some point what has been learnt is good enough.
Allowing the erasure of the past, would certainly call for the loss of many countless works of art. Are we supposed to wipe all that learnt history of the face of the earth?
History has been written in blood, pain and human misery. It's also given way to the most beautiful, awe-inspiring gifts of art and culture. Themselves stained with the same brush.
Enlightenment. You got to forgive not hold onto fear and anger.
Anyway. I don't agree but hey, that's life. One day we'll all move forward together.
Otherwise we're f**ked
Yes Andy, if you please...
Let's go to private, please, cause I believe this sort of information is not useful for anyone else.
