The Dam Busters Dog

[Corto]

I'm no fan of political correctness in general- but even I found parts of the original movie (especially the montage where they're looking for the dog) to be shockingly offensive. To those of you outside of the United States, I don't think you understand how explosive that word is here. However- maybe it should be left in. It would provide a good look at the attitudes and social mores of the British Empire and Commonwealth of the period and elevate The Dam Busters to a film with historical merit instead of being yet another action flick masquerading as a war movie.

 

[Smithy]

I'm no fan of political correctness in general- but even I found parts of the original movie (especially the montage where they're looking for the dog) to be shockingly offensive. To those of you outside of the United States, I don't think you understand how explosive that word is here. However- maybe it should be left in. It would provide a good look at the attitudes and social mores of the British Empire and Commonwealth and elevate The Dam Busters to a film with historical merit instead of being another action film masquerading as a war movie.

Once again classification should, you would think, do the trick.

I still think there is a very perverse duplicity where people can be more offended and affected by a two syllable vibration of the vocal chords than the portrayal of the violent death of a 20 something bomber crewman (and remember the deaths in this film represent actual young lives who had mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends and loved ones).

I find it sad where a sound and its connotation warrants more concern, and people are more affected by it than the portrayal of a violent loss of a young life.

Personally what affects me of the story isn't the fact they used a word in 1943 which today we now find offensive but the loss of life that it took to achieve Operation Chastise.

 

[Saint-Just]

One thing you need to remember is that a film isn't there to give the audience a lesson in history but to make money. Lots of it. If lobby groups campaign against the film, boycott it it may make headline news but that will not automatically translate into massive turnout; TV broadcasting will be compromised, and DVD chains may refuse to stock it either to make themselves "look good" (in the eyes of the "moral majority") or by fear of the reactions.

At the end of the day, no business ever went bankrupt when underestimating the intelligence of its customer base. And if Hollywood could play around with history so as to make the Americans take the Enigma, a dog + mission's name can change without an eyelid being bat in the producer's board meeting.

 

[Corto]

I find it sad where a sound and its connotation warrants more concern, and people are more affected by it than the portrayal of a violent loss of a young life.

As I said, I don't think you can understand the impact of that word unless you live here in the United States. It's a very emotionally and politically charged word that carries the weight of a couple centuries (plus) full of oppression and violence. To those it directly effects, it evokes the memories of many "young lives" ("who had mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends and loved ones") cut short or impeded by one type of violence (physical, political or legal) or another. It's not just "sound and a connotation" here.

 

[Smithy]

One thing you need to remember is that a film isn't there to give the audience a lesson in history but to make money. Lots of it. If lobby groups campaign against the film, boycott it it may make headline news but that will not automatically translate into massive turnout; TV broadcasting will be compromised, and DVD chains may refuse to stock it either to make themselves "look good" (in the eyes of the "moral majority") or by fear of the reactions.

At the end of the day, no business ever went bankrupt when underestimating the intelligence of its customer base. And if Hollywood could play around with history so as to make the Americans take the Enigma, a dog + mission's name can change without an eyelid being bat in the producer's board meeting.

As that may be, but it begs the question why a member of the public can go and see a film with Ice Cube or Ice Tray (or whatever his name is) or similar where they use "that" word and it is OK (and obviously doesn't affect the box office take and the films in question are not boycotted) - and which are no doubt taken into consideration in the setting of the classification - but a historical recreation has to change a particular word that was used?

Each country has a classification system to deal with issues of the nature of content. This film should be no different.

 

[Corto]

As that may be, but it begs the question why a member of the public can go and see a film with Ice Cube or Ice Tray (or whatever his name is) or similar where they use "that" word and it is OK (and obviously doesn't affect the box office take and the films in question are not boycotted) - and which are no doubt taken into consideration in the setting of the classification - but a historical recreation has to change a particular word that was used?

Each country has a classification system to deal with issues of the nature of content. This film should be no different.

Ah. I was waiting for this one...Obviously the use of the word is governed by a double standard. It has many meanings, depending on who uses it, and when. It's just how it is.

 

[Smithy]

As I said, I don't think you can understand the impact of that word unless you live here in the United States. It's a very emotionally and politically charged word that carries the weight of a couple centuries (plus) full of oppression and violence. To those it directly effects, it evokes the memories of many "young lives" ("who had mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, girlfriends and loved ones") cut short or impeded by one type of violence (physical, political or legal) or another. It's not just "sound and a connotation" here.

Well if it is so sensitive for US audiences, increase the classification for the film in the US or have a version where the offending word is replaced for the US market. Why should the history of an event have to be compromised to fit in with one nation?

Once again sticking heads in the sand won't change what happened nor the history of it. And as I said earlier I'd question why if you censor a dramatic recreation of an event you choose not to censor books of the same event. Why cannot a filmatic rendition be as truthful as a written one?

Cinematic classifications for audiences were created for a reason. This film should be no different.

 

[Saint-Just]

If you are complaining about double standards I'll say "welcome to the real world!" :lol:
You can tell a joke on the Irish if you're from Ireland, on Jews if you're Jewish, on Blacks if you're "Afro-American", etc.
I understand the philosophy behind it, but hate the general hypocrisy. But then remember the uproar on both side of the Atlantic when Monty Python made "The life of Brian"...

 

[Corto]

Well if it is so sensitive for US audiences, increase the classification for the film in the US or have a version where the offending word is replaced for the US market. Why should the history of an event have to be compromised to fit in with one nation?

Once again sticking heads in the sand won't change what happened nor the history of it. And as I said earlier I'd question why if you censor a dramatic recreation of an event you choose not to censor books of the same event. Why cannot a filmatic rendition be as truthful as a written one?

Cinematic classifications for audiences were created for a reason. This film should be no different.

Just to reiterate my first post in this thread, I basically agree with you. Even though I personally found the gratuitous use of the dog's name extremely offensive in the original film (again, that montage...), I do think it should be left in for the sake of historical accuracy. People today should know about the social mores of people back then. Other than that, I was just trying to get across why the word has the weight that it does in the US.

 

[Corto]

If you are complaining about double standards I'll say "welcome to the real world!" :lol:
You can tell a joke on the Irish if you're from Ireland, on Jews if you're Jewish, on Blacks if you're "Afro-American", etc.
I understand the philosophy behind it, but hate the general hypocrisy. But then remember the uproar on both side of the Atlantic when Monty Python made "The life of Brian"...

Embrace the hypocrisy. It helps...

 

[Smithy]

Just to reiterate my first post in this thread, I basically agree with you. Even though I personally found the gratuitous use of the dog's name extremely offensive in the original film (again, that montage...), I do think it should be left in for the sake of historical accuracy. People today should know about the social mores of people back then. Other than that, I was just trying to get across why the word has the weight that it does in the US.

We're on the same page here without a doubt.

I just think it's redundant to take something out which is an integral part of an historical event when individual countries' classification laws cover such things. Parts of films are always being removed or replaced in countries where they might be deemed objectionable. Muslim countries for example heavily adapt films for release in their respective countries. Indeed in the US, many Scandinavian films which feature full frontal nudity are doctored for general US release.

By the same token I think the remake of Dam Busters should include the "n" word for release in the UK and countries of the Commonwealth where the story of the raid is so well known. A country such as the USA where the word has stronger connotations should either increase the classification or if they do not wish to remove the offending word and replace it.

 

[DNO]

You fellows seem to be arguing the same point repeatedly, but it's all moot really. The reality is that feature films are made by businesses for the purpose of profit. They're not generally made for lofty purposes. The "N" word is no longer an acceptable part of a film's language. If they want to show a profit, they can't afford to alienate their viewers.

One could also consider that if this particular operation was being staged in today's environment, would Gibson still use that word as a codeword? Would he even have named his dog that name? I doubt it...Gibson was an intelligent man. Growing up in the '50's the "N" word was not uncommon and, though never considered in good taste, was certainly frequently heard. "Eenie, meanie, miney, moe..." went differently in those days. But today, the word has become offensive to pretty well everyone. It has fallen into general disuse...it won't be missed.

My favourite animal hero was always Simon the cat on H.M.S. Amethyst anyway.

 

[Shangas]

By my watch, this thread has jumped four pages in ten hours.

This is my personal view. I think that the filmmakers are sidestepping an inconvenience based purely on a misconception or an oversensitivity (if that's the word I want).

Nigger is the dog's NAME. It is in no way derogatory to anyone and it is not aimed anyone. I personally see absolutely no reason why people would or should be offended by its inclusion. And those who are offended are looking too much into it and are allowing themselves to be offended for no reason at all. The word in this context harms nobody. Let's face it. It doesn't. The fact that they won't include it to me, speaks of oversqueamishness and kowtowing to PC.

 

[Smithy]

One could also consider that if this particular operation was being staged in today's environment, would Gibson still use that word as a codeword? Would he even have named his dog that name? I doubt it...Gibson was an intelligent man. Growing up in the '50's the "N" word was not uncommon and, though never considered in good taste, was certainly frequently heard.

But Operation Chastise wasn't "staged in today's environment". You can faff around as much as you like but the historical fact of the matter is, when the Moehne dam bust, that was the word used to signal it.

If in a filmatic version, individual countries are worried about audiences getting upset about it, then it should be very easy. Bump up the classification or replace the word in question.

 

[Smithy]

By my watch, this thread has jumped four pages in ten hours.

This is my personal view. I think that the filmmakers are sidestepping an inconvenience based purely on a misconception or an oversensitivity (if that's the word I want).

Nigger is the dog's NAME. It is in no way derogatory to anyone and it is not aimed anyone. I personally see absolutely no reason why people would or should be offended by its inclusion. And those who are offended are looking too much into it and are allowing themselves to be offended for no reason at all. The word in this context harms nobody. Let's face it. It doesn't. The fact that they won't include it to me, speaks of oversqueamishness and kowtowing to PC.

Shangas you have hit the nail on the head. I owe you a beer

 

[ukali1066]

I think the fact the dog was also black is where the HUGE problem lies....

 

[Shangas]

It's a labrador. What are they gonna do? Dip it in bleech?

 

[ukali1066]

It's like having a white dog called Honky.... or a yellow dog called Nip or Chinky.....I honestly think a dog called Nigger in a film shown to todays generally ignorant of historical fact audiences will serve to distract hugely from the story in a way that the original didn't to the audience of that time....

 

[Shangas]

I fail to see how that would distract audiences from the film. Granted the dog only plays a small role in the film, but it is nonetheless significant. Changing it for the reasons cited makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[ukali1066]

In 1955 when the original film was made a lot of white people used the words Nigger, Darkie and Wog in everyday speech.....very few of them had even seen a black person.... it was socially acceptable and they thought it was fine...

In 2011 it obviously isn't.......... changing one letter of the black dogs name is a small accuracy price to pay in my opinion....now if the uniforms and planes aren't correct that will be an issue