Contact
Subscribe


Where Was All This Sensitivity When It Came To Orcish-Americans?

May 7, 2009
By .
Language, Movies

Q: What do Peter Jackson, the director of the Lord of the Rings films, and Justice Antonin Scalia have in common?

A: A dilemma about how to phrase certain words that are unacceptable in polite society.

Jackson is currently in production on a remake of the classic British war film, The Dam Busters, the story of RAF Wing Commander Guy Gibson's bombing raid on a series of German dams in 1943.  It's a true story, based on a book of the same name, and quite a good movie.  I'm sure Jackson's production, which he intends to keep true to history, will also be worthwhile.

It's just that the language has changed a bit over the past sixty years.  Even if you've not seen The Dam Busters, you may have seen excerpts of it, featuring a black labrador retriever, in Alan Parker's film Pink Floyd: The Wall.  The dog, owned by Gibson, was named, ahem, "N-word".

Except that wasn't his name. And believe it or not, the dog was very important to the story, in life and on film.  In fact, Gibson's operation was code-named for the dog:  "Operation N-Word."

Except that wasn't its code-name.  While Jackson is known as a meticulous film-maker, and says he wants to keep this production true to the facts, he's yet to come to a decision about this troublesome dog.  Some have suggested re-naming it "Niggsy."  Television networks which have shown the original film in recent years have dubbed in the name, "Trigger," leading to cries of censorship, which of course it is, and silliness, which, well …

It's a very offensive word, despite what fans of Chris Rock might tell you.

In some ways and circles, far more offensive than "F-word," which Justice Scalia couldn't bring himself to spell out. Personally I say the F-word all the time, but can't think of many situations in which I would say, or write, the word "Nigger," in other than a context like the present.

Personally I think Jackson, if he intends to remain true to the story, should probably leave it in and attempt to have a serious discussion about history and language before the film's release.

But I suspect that won't happen.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

5 Comments
Tags

5 Comments

  1. Ken  •  May 7, 2009 @10:02 am

    I've seen a number of productions of "Much Ado About Nothing," in which the witty and rascally hero Benedick utters the line "If I do not take pity of her, I am a villain; if I do not love her, I am a Jew." In about half the productions the last word has been changed to "fool."

    Is this censorship, or is it art? People putting on Shakespeare, or people making movies, are looking to convey messages and to entertain. Hewing precisely to an original text could easily thwart both. If I watched "The Dam Busters" and it featured "Operation Nigger" in an unselfconscious way, I would be thinking mostly about that and not about the story and how well the movie is done. It would take me outside of the performance. Also, because of modern sensibilities, it would convey an entirely different message than the filmmaker wanted — the people using it would come off as assholes, like Benedick does when he utters that line to a modern audience.

    So what I'm saying is that changing such things based on the sensibilities of modern audiences doesn't really bother me much.

  2. T. Hunt  •  May 7, 2009 @11:01 am

    It might be interesting to look at Gibson's background and what, if anything, led him to name the dog. If there is nothing behind the name other than the fact that the dog was black (and I realize that's a big IF), then just change the name in the remake and tell the story. If the name of the dog and the reason for naming it is tied up in why the mission was named the same, then possibly the name should be kept and the reasons explained, as much as possible, in the movie.

    The dog is integral to the story but is the name itself integral?

    My problem with 'nigger' is that it is only offensive now in certain contexts, when used by certain people and when used in certain situations and the determination is purely arbitrary, so that it is impossible to know in advance whether offense will be taken or not. Regardles if offense is given at the time. But I do understand the use of the word at that time (WWII) and agree that it could only be viewed then as offensive and degrading. That is one reason why I'm curious as to why Gibson named the dog that in the first place.

    I think this debate over the use of nigger would be more useful if there was a bright line or a consensus today on the word so that everyone felt the same way.

    And if I recall correctly, there are some other movies that use a South African word that is just as derogatory (sorry, can't remember it right now) and I don't recall that being bleeped or changed.

    I guess what I'm trying to get at is that this is a remake of a true story that was a large part of an historic conflict and that the controversy over one word has the potential to refocus any discussion of the film on an element that simply wasn't important at the time the events took place.

    Wow. I'm not sure what point I've made other than to say that the use of the word is troubling on many levels. But if Gibson named his dog Nigger because he had some history with blacks, good or bad, that's something that should be explored. If he named the dog simply because that was another word in the common lexicon he and his peers used, then that's something else and it would probably be a good idea to change it in the film.

    T. Hunt

  3. Charles  •  May 7, 2009 @11:59 am

    the determination is purely arbitrary

    This is not the case. It is never arbitrary. Only by consciously avoiding the contexts in which the term is OK ((a) spoken by African-Americans in an endearing or, at least self-referential, to take ownership of a word meant to degrade or (b) in a discussion of the word itself) or when it is not (essentially, the rest of the time) could you decide that the line drawing there is arbitrary.

    History is history and I have no problem with using the dog's real name if it matters to the story. If it doesn't, calling the dog "Blackie" wouldn't be the most significant change made in a movie based on a true story and I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

  4. Andrew  •  May 7, 2009 @12:45 pm

    T., I think the other derogatory word you're thinking of is "kaffir." The only movies I've seen it in are movies with white South African bad guys (Lethal Weapon 2 and Cry Freedom come to mind), but I would not be surprised if it turns up in some older movies.

  5. Chris  •  May 7, 2009 @2:13 pm

    "so that it is impossible to know in advance whether offense will be taken or not"

    I had no idea that I managed to do the impossible so often.