criterionforum.org

As I predicted, Criterion/Sony wasted time and money submitting Rublev and War and Peace, and this scared them off so much that they're now being too cautious with Come and See.

They probably imagine that the BBFC will pounce on any violent animal scenes, but what I'm sure many UK boutiques would be able to tell them is that the BBFC will actually bend and push their interpretation of the The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 as far as they can to get a film through uncut.

I’m certainly struggling to think of anything that unambiguously infringes the Animals Act, whereas with the other two films it’s open and shut - in particular, if that shot of the horse in Andrei Rublev is acceptable, there’s no point having animal cruelty legislation at all.

When watching The Painted Bird, a film massively and consciously influenced by both that and Come and See, I was very struck by the way that every single instance of animal cruelty was staged, filmed and cut in such a way that a cineliterate viewer could easily see how the effect was achieved. I raised this when I interviewed Václav Marhoul, and he confirmed that this was absolutely the case - it’s impossible to film that book without grasping the animal-cruelty nettle, but he didn’t want anyone to be under the impression even for a moment that it was the real thing.

(Unsurprisingly, it got past the BBFC with no problems - I doubt Eureka was expecting anything milder than a well-deserved 18 certificate, but the UK version is uncut.)

For Come and See the only moments I could think of that might be problematic are around the cow in the field getting shot and then the close-up of the eye. If that was all there before then I can't think of anything else.

On March 30th 2020 I brought up my concerns that something might come. So, see?

cdnchris wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:02 pm For Come and See the only moments I could think of that might be problematic are around the cow in the field getting shot and then the close-up of the eye. If that was all there before then I can't think of anything else.

Was an actual cow shot and killed for that shot? Seems like it, but I couldn't find anything after a quick google search.

I dont think it was actually shot. It looks like it was either pulled down or was "trained" to drop (can you train a cow??) Maybe drugged?? But I was unsure if something else in there could be objectionable.

I know they used live ammunition when filming this; however, I can't find anything specifically referencing the cow.

Even if it had been shot for real, if it was a clean kill it wouldn’t infringe the Animals Act according to the BBFC’s current interpretation. And the fact that they’ve passed the film uncut before suggests that it doesn’t.

Yes, an animal being killed even expressly for the purpose of the film is not something that will result in a cut anymore. Only animal suffering.

This is why in Cannibal Holocaust,

Spoiler

the turtle being quickly decapitated with a machete now appears in the latest UK Blu-ray, but the rather sickening scene of the coatimundi being stabbed as it screeches in pain is still cut.

EddieLarkin wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 3:36 pm As I predicted, Criterion/Sony wasted time and money submitting Rublev and War and Peace, and this scared them off so much that they're now being too cautious with Come and See.

They probably imagine that the BBFC will pounce on any violent animal scenes, but what I'm sure many UK boutiques would be able to tell them is that the BBFC will actually bend and push their interpretation of the The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 as far as they can to get a film through uncut.

I'm confused here. Is the AE disc of Rublev cut too? I thought there wasn't anything to cut. Or is the material that may fall foul of the BBFC just in the extended version on the CC release?

Yes exactly, only the longer cut features the more extreme animal violence.

Is it true that the Criterion disc only has a mono soundtrack?

I thought this was the first Russian film to be given a Dolby Stereo mix?

Beaver only mentions a 1.0 track.
The French BD uses the same restoration but has a 3.1 track instead.

Criterion only mention mono in their own specs. Does the French BD come with a separate mono track, tenia?

Yes, the Criterion only has a mono soundtrack included.

EddieLarkin wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:58 pm Criterion only mention mono in their own specs. Does the French BD come with a separate mono track, tenia?

No, it only has the 3.1 track. Which is indeed weird : what Mosfilm restored exactly ?

I’d be inclined to think that the 3.1 is closer to what Elem Klimov intended. I’ve never seen the film in mono because I was never under the impression that it should be in mono.

Seems odd for two licencees to receive different tracks from the same source. It would be a huge shame if Criterion rejected the stereo track because they thought it was a modern remix, and instead asked only for the "original mono", or even worse, if there is only a stereo track available from Mosfilm, but Criterion have folded it down to one channel thinking it was simply a dual mono source (which, if you didn't know the history of the film's release, you would be forgiven for thinking an 80s Soviet film would have originally been mono).

I'm assuming the French BD only has French subtitles, but that's honestly less of a deal-breaker for me than the loss of the original multichannel mix. Especially if it's the same restoration.

EddieLarkin wrote: Sun Jun 28, 2020 7:51 pm Yes, an animal being killed even expressly for the purpose of the film is not something that will result in a cut anymore. Only animal suffering.

So how did Arrow release The Tree of Wooden Clogs? Surely the pig scene would qualify as animal suffering.

MichaelB wrote:I'm assuming the French BD only has French subtitles, but that's honestly less of a deal-breaker for me than the loss of the original multichannel mix. Especially if it's the same restoration.

It indeed only has French subs and French-friendly extras, but it most certainly has the same picture restoration (judging by Beaver's caps).

JakeStewart wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:49 pmSo how did Arrow release The Tree of Wooden Clogs? Surely the pig scene would qualify as animal suffering.

I haven't seen the film, but the other common exception is if the animal suffering "would have happened anyway", rather than for the express purpose of the film. So the kangaroo hunt in Wake in Fright is permissible, because it was happening independently of the filmmaking.

This is how we end up with gory scenes of kangaroos being butchered and turtles being decapitated being allowed, but horse trips nearly always being cut.

JakeStewart wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:49 pmSo how did Arrow release The Tree of Wooden Clogs? Surely the pig scene would qualify as animal suffering.

As far as I can see from the official BBFC report, they regard the deaths of the pig and the goose as clean kills and therefore not an infringement of the Animals Act. As mentioned above, the BBFC currently applies the most liberal possible interpretation of the 1937 Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act, which prohibits "visible infliction of pain, or cruel goading of an animal to fury" - but slaughter for farming purposes is always likely to get through unless the animal is obviously being tortured for real.

(This is why the coatimundi scene in Cannibal Holocaust will never get passed for legal exhibition in Britain while the Animals Act remains on the statute books, because the animal is unquestionably being tortured - as in clearly deliberate infliction of extreme pain, to which it loudly reacts - for several seconds before it's killed. Similarly, the longer cut of Andrei Rublev features a horse obviously in agony as a result of extreme violence inflicted purely in order to get that shot, and while the BBFC normally bends over backwards to excuse Serious Artists, in this case the law overrides artistic snobbery.)

EddieLarkin wrote: Tue Jun 30, 2020 5:10 pmI haven't seen the film, but the other common exception is if the animal suffering "would have happened anyway", rather than for the express purpose of the film. So the kangaroo hunt in Wake in Fright is permissible, because it was happening independently of the filmmaking.

Indeed, and Ted Kotcheff was in regular consultation with the Australian RSPCA throughout, as he wanted to make sure that this footage was absolutely above board. In fact, the RSPCA was delighted that he was including this material, because they'd been trying to raise awareness of illegal kangaroo hunts in the Outback for ages, and a potentially high-profile film was an ideal vehicle - and they were so enthusiastic that they even told Kotcheff that they wouldn't raise the slightest objection if he made the footage even more graphic (it's toned down a fair bit from the source novel!). But Kotcheff - wisely, in my view - decided that he didn't want to risk audiences fleeing cinemas in droves only a third of the way into the film.

All of this info was passed onto the BBFC, which duly waved the film through uncut both in 1971 and more recently when Eureka released their Blu-ray - in fact, it's a textbook example of ethically responsible filmmaking.

Chris, I noticed that your review mentions the film receiving a 4K restoration but the Criterion website mentions a 2K restoration. Is this just a mistake or is it really from a 4K restoration?

Nope, it's 2K. I made a mistake and wrote down 4K in my notes. Apologies for that.