Khartoum (1966) has been cut by 29 seconds (1 Viewer)

[oscar_merkx]

http://www.bbfc.co.uk
KHARTOUM Video
Feature
Classified 12 February, 2003 . Run Time 132m 7s

Widescreen, Feature and Trailer,

Advice for consumers
Language None
Sex/Nudity None
Violence Infrequent, mild
Theme or content None

The main spoken language in this work is English.
The BBFC has placed this work in the PERIOD DRAMA genre(s).

When submitted to the BBFC the work had a running time of 132m 36s.

To obtain this category cuts of 0m 29s were required. The cuts were Compulsory.

Compulsory cuts required in dangerous horsefalls according to the Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937 for classification of work.

At the time of classification MGM Home Entertainment (Europe) Ltd was the holder of the rights or the brand name for this work.

Directed by Basil Dearden Producer(s) Not known

The cast for this work includes: Charlton Heston, Laurence Olivier, Ralph Richardson, Richard Johnson, Hugh Williams, Alexander Knox.

This work is made up of a number of separate components.
Note that since February 2001 the BBFC has measured each component separately, but older works may not have the exact details, only a list of titles.
02:10:05:18 | KHARTOUM
00:02:01:16 | NO TITLE ON SCREEN

A film or video, together with associated trailers may exist in several versions and all versions known to the BBFC are listed below.

Category Type Date Company Run Time Cut Title
Film 08/03/1966 Julian Blanstein Prods 114m 19s No KHARTOUM
Video 16/04/1986 Warner Home Video Ltd 122m 23s Yes KHARTOUM
Video 12/02/2003 MGM Home Entertainment (Europe) Ltd 132m 7s Yes KHARTOUM

Details are likely to be more complete and accurate for the version submitted most recently.
When a film is transferred to video the running time will be shorter by approximately 4% due to the differing number of frames per second. This does not mean that the video version has been cut or re-edited.
This entry was last updated 14/02/2003

This is really interesting that a cut was done simply of horsefalls. This is double standards in comparison with Ben Hur was much worse imo.

can anybody see the rationale behind this ?

I can't

 

[andrew markworthy]

I should preface this post by saying that I'm not a major fan of censorship, nor am I a veggie animal-lover. However, I do think that injuring or killing an animal purely for entertainment is morally wrong. Also, that in general the BBFC is right over cutting out shots which have involved the ill-treatment to animals in making them (in this respect, I think American censorship is lax, rather than liberal). With the greatest respect, Oscar, saying that another film is 'worse' doesn't defend it (e.g. 'Harold Shipman should be judged as a nice person because Hitler murdered more people').

Horse falls can be done humanely, but presumably in Khartoum the falls were done in a way which stands a high chance of causing death or serious injury. To leave such scenes in would encourage the continued practice of placing horses under undue risk in the making of future films.

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi Andrew

I am a bit late in replying to your post, and I think it is wrong to censor in general. I understand what you are saying though.

Oscar

 

[Steve Christou]

I bought the uncut region 1 last year, 'Khartoum' has always been cut over here in England, probably in its original 1966 cinema release too. 'Glory' suffered the same fate on r2 dvd.
The most ludicrous horse-fall censorship by the BBFC was a horse jumping a hundred feet off a cliff into the ocean in the Bond film 'Never Say Never Again', ludicrous because the horse was clearly a bad special effect of a horse falling, didn't look real, but the jittery censors still cut it, not sure if the current r2 dvd release of NSNA is still cut.

 

[Douglas R]

I have no objection to the cutting of scenes in new films which involve dangerous horse falls but to cut scenes form films made many years ago is absurd. Is the BBFC going to examine each and every western from the '20s onwards and cut scenes when standards on filming animals were less than they are today? That would be totally irrelevant to the treatment of animals today. I shall make sure that in future I obtain my John Ford western DVDs from the USA.

 

[Jeff_HR]

To leave such scenes in would encourage the continued practice of placing horses under undue risk in the making of future films

It not this opinion about 36 yrs too late in regards to this film?

 

[andrew markworthy]

It not this opinion about 36 yrs too late in regards to this film?

No.