The Dam Busters remake

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Its an interesting point, if one is to depict a historical figure and historical event there is an argument to leave the names as they were.

If this were about a historical documentary then I might agree with you. But it isn't, it's a drama. Not everything in a drama is, or is expected to be 100% accurate. Does it make any difference to the drama if the dog's name is given accurately or if the code word is given accurately? I don't think it does.

Now I'm against total misrepresentation even in a drama. Like pretending that it was the Americans that captured the Enigma machine from the German submarine (U-571) or pretending that Sgt Maj Coward took part in The Great Escape (The Password is Courage). But every dramatisation takes some short cuts, conflating two or more characters into one, missing out less significant parts of a story and so on. Do you think that the dog's name or the precise code word used is an important part of the story? I don't.

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by earlb I'm not as articulate as Cristoph404 but I whole heartedly agree with his posting. It is History and so should remain taking into account the time period and context.

Why?

Why is the dog's name or the actual code word used important?
Did it affect way they did in any way?

If you want every historical detail to be included then look for a documentary, not a drama. Although even a documentary will take short cuts.

Steve

[Marky B]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Its an interesting point, if one is to depict a historical figure and historical event there is an argument to leave the names as they were. Wouldn't the debate then be about how casually words like that were used in the 40s and 50s? as opposed to now when they are totally unacceptable? And to leave the words and names as they were is merely reflecting the attitudes of the time? Would that mean changing expressions like "the Hun", "Krauts" and "Gerrys"? Im sure those expressions are quite offensive to German people, but you could argue that they are representative of the language used to refer to Germas during WW2. Of course attitudes have changed and those words are deemed offensive today. In the film "Zulu" Michael Caine says the lines " damned fuzzy wuzzies" and "cowardly blacks" Highly offensive comments by todays standards but those are the comments of a character based in the 1860s. I think the reality is that terms like "nigger" were probably used on a very casual basis in those days (1940s) as was the word "wog" and "golly wog". Of course we can change the names and terminology from what was actually used and bring it all up to date and pretend that Guy Gibson didn't call his dog "Nigger", the truth is that he did. I would agree that quite a lot of people could be offended by that inclusion, on the other hand people might view it in its historical context and be inclined not to apply modern day standards of PC to a character from the 1940s. I have no doubt that Guy Gibson called his dog "nigger" because the dog was black and "nigger"was the term to describe black people in South Africa and in the US. I just think that is the truth of it and I think todays modern society has trouble coming to terms with the fact that a national war hero would seem ( by todays standards) to be an insensitive racist! I don't think he was a racist, I think he just followed in with general sensibility and terminology of the day in calling his dog Nigger. I wonder if the name should be left as it were and let people decide for themselves? Changing it would certainly protect Gibson's name from any controversy I suppose and protect members of the audience who might be offended, but it would be a bit of a lie wouldn't it? I guess it depends how accurate the film makers want to be,this is a film about a real person and a real event after all. It makes me feel uncomfortable to think that people had such a casual attitude to using those words and thank goodness those days seem to have gone, it also makes me feel uncomfortable that people now advocate changing the details of history and somehow erasing any trace of that kind of thing from our past.

Well written,Chris - a well balanced and rational comment.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[lordtednfs]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Its an interesting point, if one is to depict a historical figure and historical event there is an argument to leave the names as they were. Wouldn't the debate then be about how casually words like that were used in the 40s and 50s? as opposed to now when they are totally unacceptable? And to leave the words and names as they were is merely reflecting the attitudes of the time? Would that mean changing expressions like "the Hun", "Krauts" and "Gerrys"? Im sure those expressions are quite offensive to German people, but you could argue that they are representative of the language used to refer to Germas during WW2. Of course attitudes have changed and those words are deemed offensive today. In the film "Zulu" Michael Caine says the lines " damned fuzzy wuzzies" and "cowardly blacks" Highly offensive comments by todays standards but those are the comments of a character based in the 1860s. I think the reality is that terms like "nigger" were probably used on a very casual basis in those days (1940s) as was the word "wog" and "golly wog". Of course we can change the names and terminology from what was actually used and bring it all up to date and pretend that Guy Gibson didn't call his dog "Nigger", the truth is that he did. I would agree that quite a lot of people could be offended by that inclusion, on the other hand people might view it in its historical context and be inclined not to apply modern day standards of PC to a character from the 1940s. I have no doubt that Guy Gibson called his dog "nigger" because the dog was black and "nigger"was the term to describe black people in South Africa and in the US. I just think that is the truth of it and I think todays modern society has trouble coming to terms with the fact that a national war hero would seem ( by todays standards) to be an insensitive racist! I don't think he was a racist, I think he just followed in with general sensibility and terminology of the day in calling his dog Nigger. I wonder if the name should be left as it were and let people decide for themselves? Changing it would certainly protect Gibson's name from any controversy I suppose and protect members of the audience who might be offended, but it would be a bit of a lie wouldn't it? I guess it depends how accurate the film makers want to be,this is a film about a real person and a real event after all. It makes me feel uncomfortable to think that people had such a casual attitude to using those words and thank goodness those days seem to have gone, it also makes me feel uncomfortable that people now advocate changing the details of history and somehow erasing any trace of that kind of thing from our past.

Excellently put.

Good job the codeword was not Mohammed. What trouble we would be in!

________________
Hooked off the line

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by lordtednfs Excellently put. Good job the codeword was not Mohammed. What trouble we would be in!

Why is that any worse? I think they'd be as bad as each other, for similar reasons

Steve

[penfold]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Its an interesting point, if one is to depict a historical figure and historical event there is an argument to leave the names as they were. Wouldn't the debate then be about how casually words like that were used in the 40s and 50s?

.


Yes, and that is a debate well worth having in the right context. Do you honestly think that this (A film about the sacrifices of some of the finest and bravest airmen who died for this country, and by extension the rest of Bomber Command) is the best context, or is likely to destroy the point of the film??

Of course attitudes have changed and those words are deemed offensive today....... I would agree that quite a lot of people could be offended by that inclusion. .... I don't think he was a racist, I think he just followed in with general sensibility and terminology of the day in calling his dog Nigger. I wonder if the name should be left as it were and let people decide for themselves? Changing it would certainly protect Gibson's name from any controversy I suppose and protect members of the audience who might be offended.

All good and valid reasons for cutting the dog's name from the picture.....so why the debate; why is it in any way a good thing to include it by its original name?? And as we all said before, it's making assumptions that he himself named the dog...

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook If this were about a historical documentary then I might agree with you. But it isn't, it's a drama. Not everything in a drama is, or is expected to be 100% accurate. Does it make any difference to the drama if the dog's name is given accurately or if the code word is given accurately? I don't think it does. Now I'm against total misrepresentation even in a drama. Like pretending that it was the Americans that captured the Enigma machine from the German submarine (U-571) or pretending that Sgt Maj Coward took part in The Great Escape (The Password is Courage). But every dramatisation takes some short cuts, conflating two or more characters into one, missing out less significant parts of a story and so on. Do you think that the dog's name or the precise code word used is an important part of the story? I don't. Steve

I would agree with all of the above, the point I was trying to make is that in this instance the name would be changed for a specific, serious and contentious reason, i.e. the name "nigger" is considered racist and offensive by todays standards but in the context of the time perhaps there is a case for looking at it in a different way. You could argue that changing it for reasons of being racially offensive would be seen as confirmation of racist and offensive intent on the part of Gibson. I was hoping to present a possible case for leaving as it is, I don't think it would detract from the drama if it was changed, but it could possibly generate more controversy than it hoped to avoid by changing it.

[penfold]

I would expect The Daily Mail and its ilk to try and start a controversy if it were changed, but on a global scale, which is where the producers will want it seen, and where I would want it seen, it would be far, far more contentious to leave it in. Which is, of course, why the original is screened dubbed over now...

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 I would agree with all of the above, the point I was trying to make is that in this instance the name would be changed for a specific, serious and contentious reason, i.e. the name "nigger" is considered racist and offensive by todays standards but in the context of the time perhaps there is a case for looking at it in a different way. You could argue that changing it for reasons of being racially offensive would be seen as confirmation of racist and offensive intent on the part of Gibson. I was hoping to present a possible case for leaving as it is, I don't think it would detract from the drama if it was changed, but it could possibly generate more controversy than it hoped to avoid by changing it.

I think it would only generate such a controversy amongst those that wanted to stir up a bit of racial ill-will (who mentioned the Daily Mail? ).

There are good reasons for changing the word in a drama (film or otherwise) that I've detailed above. There aren't any good reasons that I can see or that anyone has claimed here, for leaving it in.

I don't think that changing the name would confirm anything about Gibson. If anyone wanted to investigate that aspect of him then a film about the Dambusters raid isn't the place to do it because it the absence or presence of the word has no effect on the planning, development or execution of the raid.

Steve

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook There are good reasons for changing the word in a drama (film or otherwise) that I've detailed above. There aren't any good reasons that I can see or that anyone has claimed here, for leaving it in. Steve

I would leave it in as changing it is revisionism and something of an insult to Gibson and the film audience in general, I also think it would leave the door wide open for satirists to mercilessly mock the film.

[penfold]

Originally Posted by DB7 I would leave it in as changing it is revisionism and something of an insult to Gibson and the film audience in general, I also think it would leave the door wide open for satirists to mercilessly mock the film.

In contrast, changing it would protect Gibson from revisionists making assumptions about him...Satirists worth their salt would not bother.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by DB7 I would leave it in as changing it is revisionism and something of an insult to Gibson and the film audience in general, I also think it would leave the door wide open for satirists to mercilessly mock the film.

Or you could just not mention it at all. It could be just "Gibson's dog" and the code word could be any old code word, it could even be broadcast unencoded

Steve

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Or you could just not mention it at all. It could be just "Gibson's dog" and the code word could be any old code word, it could even be broadcast unencoded Steve

True enough. But if we cast Samuel L Jackson as the radio operator he can say Nigger time and again...

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by DB7 True enough. But if we cast Samuel L Jackson as the radio operator he can say Nigger time and again...

Samuel L. in the RAF? Will he be able to wear his kilt again?

Steve

[Third Man]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook If this were about a historical documentary then I might agree with you. But it isn't, it's a drama. Not everything in a drama is, or is expected to be 100% accurate. Does it make any difference to the drama if the dog's name is given accurately or if the code word is given accurately? I don't think it does. Steve

I agree with this 100% and if there was to be historical accuracy in this film then the language used by the crew in the bombers would be a lot more fruitier than damn and blast. The fowl language used in high stress battle conditions would make this film at least a 15 certificate no problem if accuracy was to be adhered too.

This film should hit the widest possible demographic possible i.e. those with a interest in seeing a film about a war hero and the making of the bouncing bomb, they should not be stopped from seeing this film because the accuracy of the film over language and terminology has created a certification that has not allowed them too view it, just because of some bloody dog called a name that allot of people would now find offensive. You don't see copies of 'Ten Little Niggers' on the shelves of book shops anymore you see 'And Then There Were None'.

Simon