Offensive words in films

[onlymark]

Imagine the situation whereby a real life incident occurred many years ago.
Imagine that one of the names of the characters involved, who played an important role, is now 'offensive' to a section of the human race, it is non-PC.
You want to make a film of the whole circumstances.

Do you change the non-PC name to something more acceptable or, for the sake of historical accuracy, keep the same name?

One small point is that a film was made a few years after the event but whilst the word was still more or less acceptable - you are remaking the film.

[Deleted]

This sounds like the new editions of Huckleberry Finn trying to remove the word 'nigger' from the text. Bloody ridiculous, obviously.

[cheerypeabrain]

I can think of a fair few WW II films made in the UK that wouldn't get past the censor nowadays. Not that they would be remade...they are 'of their time' tho.

[onlymark]

You both are actually right.
There was a film called The Dambusters about a real life air raid in Germany during WWII. The lead pilot had a dog called Nigger. A code word was transmitted over the radio when a dam had been breached, the name of the dog. A remake of the film would change the name to Digger.
To me it opens the question of whether we should change historical fact for the sake of political correctness.

Following on from that I wonder if it is only me who finds the name 'Jesus' offensive and and in future he should be referred to as 'Kevin'.
However, I'm not even sure if there was a Jesus and he is just a made up figure. If so, and I believe so, then there is no problem in changing his name.

[cheerypeabrain]

They can keep their Jesus.....I'd just prefer it if the stories in the bible began with 'Once Upon A Time'...or were seen more in the same light as Aesop's fables. I'm a raddled old atheist me....

[onlymark]

Raddled or addled?

[hwinpp]

A proppa digger would probably feel insulted if a dog was named that...

[Deleted]

I am sometimes dumbfounded by some of the ridiculous 'substitution words' that are used to replace the real ones on airline edited versions of certain films.

[rikita]

i would guess it depends a bit... like, who the movie is for and all that, and the contexts in which they are used. but i think you could keep them, generally, though sometimes a certain explanation might be necessary (especially when it is a movie for children).

as for using the name jesus in a film - do you mean jesus as a name of a character (like a first name in spanish speaking countries) or for jesus himself?

either way, i don't quite see the paralell, as afaik the name jesus is not generally seen as an insult, nor generally meant that way, while the word nigger is.

[bixaorellana]

I agree with Rikita in not understanding what the name of Jesus has to do with anything, nor why it would be considered insulting. It hardly matters whether one believes there was a historical Christ or not. I assume most of us reading this don't believe that Scarlett O'Hara really lived, but changing her name would just be bone-headed. Also, as Rikita pointed out, Jesus is just a name. In fact, there is more than one Jesus in the New Testament.

As to the OP question about the historical dog with the offensive name ......... In that particular instance, it seems right to change the name unless such a name was strictly necessary to show the character of the person who named the dog. A movie were made of the event cited would be based on historical fact, but by its very nature be partly fiction, as dialogue, interesting characters, etc. would have to be added to keep the whole thing interesting.

(modified to fix sloppy typing)

[onlymark]

The point as regards Jesus is that if there is a name that is offensive to someone, or a section of the community, even though it isn't to everyone else - should it not be used in a film?
Using the word nigger is obviously offensive now. But it is the name of a dog and doesn't refer to a person. Any word can become offensive to some. E.g. classing Downs Syndrome children as Mongols is now offensive and if any word can become offensive, be it a name or a classification - should it be used?
I wanted to pick a word that is relatively inoffensive, so Jesus it is.
If I feel the word is offensive and shouldn't be used, if I am offended when I have long hair and a beard and someone calls me Jesus, why should anyone then use it?

You see how ridiculous it gets?

If there was a character in the film, a human, and he was called nigger, or that was his nickname, then fair enough, change it for modern sensibilities.
But a dog?

Also - I expect there are some of you so brainwashed and politically correct that you cringe every time I write that word. You dare not utter it and it shall not pass your lips - even though it is part of historical fact, a bad part granted, but it is a word. Yet you dare not even write it.

What if the dog, after all we're talking still about a domesticated beast that we breed for work and eating as well as looking nice - much like any farm animal but we westerners don't particularly like to think of eating Lassie - was tall and blond and called Aryan? Or Honky? Cracker? Gubba? Gora? Inselaffe?

What if I find the term in the line above (after 'Or' and is 'H***y) - I'm sorry I just can't write it again, I get all upset and angry, I get palpitations and I seethe every time every time it's said or I see it in print, what if I find it deeply, deeply offensive?
It doesn't matter that you don't. For my own reasons I do, and the reasons don't matter either, it's the sheer fact that I am offended by it - me any many others - then by rights you shouldn't use it either.

In fact I'm going to sue the Rolling Stones for using it in Honky Tonk Woman and I want the classification of the music genre changing as well from Honky Tonk to something more acceptable.
Shit, I've just written it twice. I'm going to have to lie down and meditate to get over it.

Conclusion -
a) it's a dog. Called Nigger. Not a person. Leave the name alone. It's historical fact no matter the film is dramatised.
b) Is the criteria for finding a word offensive the subjective opinion of the person it is aimed at? How 'offended' they are by it (on a scale of one to ten?)
If so, then what to stop me saying honky offends me - me that is, not you, your opinion doesn't matter, it's a personal thing, the same amount and the two words should be treated equally.

[onlymark]

And one more or less last thing as I'm off on holiday in a couple of days.
What criteria do you use to determine if a word is offensive then?

The reaction of those targeted?
Or the type of people who use it?
Or a combination of both?

E.g. If the word of the dog was initially used to refer to a race of people, but used by nuns?
And white's in general didn't use it let's say.
So the only factor is the reaction of the race.
Would it still be offensive?

The same word, the same reaction, but now used by whites.
Not any more an innocuous word but an offensive one probably.

The same word but used by the same race it is aimed at, to each other?
The target race/group are not now offended as they are using it to describe each other.
Not now offensive, no? - unless a white person uses it (but not instigated by nuns)

So it seems a word can only be offensive if it is used by a certain group/race to describe another group of humanity. And only if the group using it, within that certain group, are ordinary people and not those who are believed to be nice and virtuous.
So does it seem that it's not only the target group but the people who use it that determines if a word is offensive?

What about if the word is used by ordinary people to describe another group/race (and they are offended by it), but the people who are using it have been subject to offensive words themselves over history?
That offensive word now doesn't become so offensive, does it?
Dual standards in effect - group A calls group B a certain word. It is easier to accept it as being offensive if group A has a history of treating group B badly than the word group B calls group A in return.
Yet the people of group A are deeply offended by being called it, so they say. Doesn't really matter so much though does it because they've offended group B so many times before.

The complication arises when someone, not in the target group, finds it offensive - not because they are offended by the word as it isn't aimed at them, but they are offended by the word offending other people.

[onlymark]

As pointed out to me in a video recently - what ever happened to sticks and stones may break my bones but words cannot hurt me?
It seems I/you/they can be offended though by words and we'll make laws about it and send you to prison for it in extreme cases.

There does have to be a limit, but my opinion, as you may have gathered, is that there are far too many people being far too sensitive, tilting at windmills and being slighted by the slightest thing.
The word nigger is offensive, I agree, but it seems only if certain people use it in a certain way against a specific target group. A blanket ban on the word - as used in this case being the name of man's best friend and used in a way that was part of historical record in a certain specific way as a code word to denote a momentous event - to change that is crass stupidity and dishonours the men involved (and I bet the dog would be pissed off to).

[bixaorellana]

I totally disagree.

[onlymark]

You've found the flaw in my argument.

[Deleted]

Frankly, I agree with Mark. I find it so silly that even the word 'oriental' is considered offensive now, but not by everybody and not everywhere in the world. I personally think that oriental is a very nice melodious word, and I defy any Asian who dislikes it to explain exactly what they find repulsive about it -- probably most of them will just say that it is because they were told that it is offensive.

Obviously the word nigger is offensive, but I'm wondering if any white person has ever really been offended by the word honky. It elicits nothing at all, as a late invention from the 1960's with no known origin. It's a classic example of an offensive word being inoffensive when it has absolutely no historical context to trigger emotions.

Nevertheless, I think that we all need to be able to deal with the use of questionable words on a case by case basis, rather than having the world language police decide to erase every possible term that might offend someone. (Imagine, for example, if vegetarian language police decided to eliminate every single reference to any sort of meat or animal product in movies or literature....)

[Deleted]

I just remembered what some of my older Arab colleagues told me about Middle Eastern television in the 1960's. This is not so much about offensive words as offensive images.

One of the most popular series was "Bonanza" as it was already quite well adapted to local customs -- the head of the family was a widower with 3 sons, so that eliminated 90% of the pesky female problem. Most of the other women that one could glimpse were homestead mothers in huge bonnets and long dresses with long sleeves and big broods of children. Their eyes were always cast to the ground as they should be, and they always obeyed what the men told them to do.

The decor was nice and dusty, with lots of deserts and rocks, so the Middle Eastern viewers felt right at home, even if horses were used instead of camels.

However, there was one problem -- the saloon. Saloon women were just chopped out with the censor's scissors. As for the beverage consumed, the Arabic version always called it chai, even when it was poured out of a bottle. Ah, the famous tearooms of the Old West!

This is just an example of what is in store for us when right-minded people decide to modify the past so that it corresponds to how our wonderful sanitized world should be. What is great about this method is that it eliminates all need for society to continue to advance, because there is no longer any trace of unpleasantness.

[onlymark]

None spring to mind, but I have had the opportunity to watch Hollywood films on many occasions (often on Egypt Air) where not only have words been omitted or changed, but whole sections of film deleted as they are deemed to be offensive sexually, morally, racially or religiously.
Continuity be damned.

[onlymark]

Jun 28, 2011 7:42:42 GMT kerouac2 said:

(Imagine, for example, if vegetarian language police decided to eliminate every single reference to any sort of meat or animal product in movies or literature....)

Conversely, brussel sprouts should be banned. Same with broccoli.

[Deleted]

There seems to be an outcry from the "morally superior" countries whenever certain countries "revise" their history books to eliminate unpleasant facts or people who should not have existed.

I wonder why.

[bjd]

I agree with Mark too, although not about broccoli.

I don't think anything from the past should be rewritten to sanitize it. It's another way of erasing the past and making it seem different and more in keeping with whatever ethics and terms are currently being used. Exactly as Kerouac says about rewritten history books.

[Deleted]

And brussel sprouts? You are strangely silent about the unjustly maligned brussel sprouts....

[onlymark]

Jun 28, 2011 13:59:53 GMT kerouac2 said:

There seems to be an outcry from the "morally superior" countries whenever certain countries "revise" their history books to eliminate unpleasant facts or people who should not have existed.

I am aware there are always two versions of history - that of the winners and that of the losers.

[bjd]

Kerouac, I don't like brussels sprouts.

Not just winners and losers, Mark. I have friends who just returned from 2 weeks in Uzbekistan. They told me the country is switching from the Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet, but that the December deadline would probably not be met because all the school textbooks and history books have to be changed. Not just the language but Uzbek heroes are being put in, whereas I don't suppose there was much mention of them before.

[rikita]

um... just wondering - why was the dog called nigger in the first place? and not being from the time and all that, i can't know for sure - but i kind of thought that the word nigger was never a particularly nice word, even in the times when it was common to use...

[rikita]

well i would suppose whoever believes there is one "true" history and everything else is "wrong" is making it kind of too simple. looking at the world, as it is now, for example, it seems too complex to be able to summarize it in a few paragraphs or a few books later on. and i suppose that wasn't different in earlier times... apart from that many things are only theories...

[Deleted]

I wonder how many people have been completely erased from the Bible over the centuries.

[bixaorellana]

Sorry about the very brief response earlier. I´m stuck using internet cafes until my computer is fixed, so sometimes it´s a hassle to write very much.

Let me see if I can say something coherent here, as I´m sitting in an internet cafe that´s filling up with diesel fumes from the moron idling his 18 wheeler out on the road.

I keep thinking about the questions raised in this thread, and I feel the bottom line is, if something offends someone and it´s possible to avoid saying it (as in the case of the dog´s name), why not just go ahead and avoid it? As you can see from Rikita´s response in no.24, the use of such a term can be confusing and a distraction from what the film is really about.

All of us routinely censor ourselves to an extent, depending on the company, circumstances, etc. Also, for those of us who are of European ancestry, who are we to decide what terms other groups should have to accept because we have decided they´re okay?

I was also confused at first by why ''Asian'' is not the same as ''Oriental''. Perhaps it´s because ''oriental'' automatically assumes that the important center of everything is the so-called occidental world. Whatever the reason, if Asian is the word that people prefer, Asian it should be.

[Deleted]

I have no problem being called "Occidental" by a citizen of the "Middle Kingdom"

[Kimby]

Just saw "The King's Speech" and was wondering if some prudes were offended by the use of foul language as a tool for breaking the king's stammer?