MovieChat Forums > Poor Things (2024) Discussion > Cut in the UK

Cut in the UK

posted 5 months ago by JayceeTatler (99)
21 replies | jump to latest

Rare that a film gets censored over here these days, but that seems to be the case according to the BBFC's website.

"Cuts:
We originally saw this film for advice. We informed the distributor we would be likely to classify the film 18 on condition that changes be made to one short sequence depicting sexual activity in the presence of children. This is in accordance with the Protection of Children Act 1978. When the distributor submitted the film for formal classification, the scene had been re-edited, and we were able to classify the film 18.".

In these days of intimacy coordinators you wouldn't have thought anything like that would have been able to go before the cameras in the first place. If children were exposed to inappropriate behaviour as the BBFC suggests, surely there should be some sort of criminal investigation, if not surely the filmmakers should sue the BBFC for suggesting that was the case.

[–] Burgershmurger (1289) 4 months ago

You what!? Did they really go there? It should be banned. Meanwhile, in France it's rated PG. Why do the French even pretend to care...

[–] xergan (898) 4 months ago

The scene is with two dressed boys who get sex education first hand shown by daddy, the boys are like 12 and 15. Ridiculous if this is really cut in UK. Except the scene was also cut for me and the boys joined Daddy.

[–] fc31 (4664) 4 months ago

I thought you were kidding about France but it is actually true, it is rated "tous publics (for all audience) avec avertissement (with warning)", that should be equivalent of PG.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

Yeah. It's not unusual. Most films that get an R rating in the USA are zero-rated ('tous publics') in France.

[–] TheArgentinian (6517) 4 months ago

Video nasties are back.

BTW, the way it was shown it was obvious the reactions were shot in front of nothing. The 4 of them weren't in the same frame during the deed. I wonder how it was recut.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1548) 4 months ago

They probably CGI'ed moustaches onto the children.

[–] Moonglum9 (10749) 4 months ago

😂😂😂

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

If children were exposed to inappropriate behaviour as the BBFC suggests

This isn't what the BBFC is suggesting. The Protection of Children Act 1978 covers both actual and 'pseudo-photographs' of sexual acts involving children.

They haven't commented on the circumstances of the filming, but only on the film itself. In their expert opinion, in its original form it was in contravention of British law, so they've protected the filmmakers from a potential prosecution. That's their job. That's what filmmakers pay them to do.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

And yet the teachers fucking in front of the kids scene in Monty Python’s Meaning Of Life passed at ‘15’.

BBFC are inconsistent censorious twats who take money to ‘advise’ on cuts.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

BBFC are inconsistent censorious twats

Nah. Not any more. Not since Ferman left. They're a very sensible organisation these days who have a lot of public trust. But they do have to comply with the law. They don't make the law.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

They’re corrupt wankers. They take money to ‘advise’ on cuts, leaving the UK strewn with worthless censored movies.

They’re also petty authoritarians. The UK won’t be seeing a 4K disc of The Abyss because the BBFC insisted the scene in which a rat is submerged in breathing fluid be cut. The distributor rightly pulled the film from the UK than butcher it, but the BBFC is to blame for forcing them into that situation.

The BBFC should certify films, end of, not get involved in editing them.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

The BBFC informed the distributors of The Abyss that the rat scene would need to be cut to comply with UK law. The distributor decided not to cut the scene and not to submit an edited version for classification. That's their prerogative.

The BBFC exists in large part to ensure that film production companies comply with UK legislation. That's a service it provides to distributors for which distibutors pay a fee.

If you have a problem with UK legislation, that's something to take it up with your local MP. The BBFC is only responsible for compliance. They don't make the laws.

The BBFC should certify films, end of, not get involved in editing them.

They're effectively the same thing. That's their job. The bulk of their work involves advising how to achieve lower certificates. For example: 'This film is a 15 in its current form. If you cut this, trim this and this, it'll be a 12.' It is then up to the distributors which certificate they would prefer for marketing purposes.

What is acceptable at various certificates has been arrived at through large-scale public consultations. Which is why the BBFC is well trusted by parents. They've had a part in shaping its policies.

It's now quite rare now for the BBFC to suggest any cuts at 18 certificate unless they feel the material contravenes UK law -- law which they do not make.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

Nah, it’s just the BBFC being dicks again. If they never raised a stink about the rat scene nobody would care.

They charge money to ‘advise’ on how studios can butcher their films to lower the certificate. They should not do this. They should do what other equivalent countries do and certify only without meddling in editing the films into shitty cut versions.

Let’s also not forget that the BBFC decide what is allowed in the various certificates. They control the whole scam. That’s why things change with the leadership - Ferman was a dick, his follow-up was less of a dick. Nothing to do with ‘the law’, solely to do with which corrupt petty tyrant runs the show.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

I've given you the information. Whether you accept the information or not is up to you.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

You gave something approximating the official line, but omitted through either deceit or ignorance the reality of the situation, which I then gave to you.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

Again, the information is there. You can also look these things up, of course.

Enough.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

You gave something approximating the official line, but omitted through either deceit or ignorance the reality of the situation, which I then gave to you.

[–] capuchin (2721) 4 months ago

It's like dealing with a toddler. Have a good evening.

[–] Melton (2531) 4 months ago

It sure is, a very gullible toddler.

[–] xergan (898) 4 months ago

Back then Jimmy Savile was on the loose.

[–] Information-Police (4186) 4 months ago

Does the author really think that the scene was filmed with child actors actually in front of people engaged in sex?