Dam Busters on TV today

What was done to that film yesterday was censorship, pure and simple. What right do the scum at Channel Four have to censor a movie made over half a century ago? The same bunch think nothing of showing glorified pornography on a regular basis, and their current season of Ingmar Bergman films includes one depicting incest, but they'll excuse it as 'art'. Am I right in saying Noel Coward was only kidding when he sang Don't let's be beastly to the Germans, or was yesterday's fiasco the first phase in rewriting ww2 history?
The country has gone mad; not long ago, the Scottish Parliament tried to make all films depicting ANY use of ANY tobacco-related product automatically carry an 18 certificate, 'to discourage smoking', and a British kid's tv channel recently announced they would be editing ALL cartoons in their repertoire for exactly the same reason.
I've never been closer to emigrating, but finding somewhere sane is the problem.

 

So what if Channel 4 were to decide that, because the film contained the word Nigger, they were not going to show the film because it may offend some people? Would people be happiy then? Because, as I said before, those are the options. In the current climate, especially when Channel 4 were officially found guilty of racial insensitivity and inaction over the Big Brother fiasco, of course they're going to censor a couple of words.

I still don't understand what the problem is - so they changed a name 3 or 4 times. As has been mentioned in other threads on similar lines, the film itself changed the historical facts and/or omitted them altogether. If you want to go ape about anything about the film how about the lack of portrayals of Australians.

People need to get this into perspective.

 

... how about the lack of portrayals of Australians.

Please tell me more.

 

Please tell me more.

There are a number of Dambuster threads here, and I can't quite find the right one at the moment but Spidge listed the non-British crews on the following thread. How many of them were represented in the film?

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/books-movies/8308-dambusters-remake.html?highlight=dambusters

 

I know the film changed some of the historical facts- that's called screenplay. The point I'm trying to make is that a commercial tv station CANNOT decide to overdub a 52 year old film on the grounds that someone might be offended by the use of a word not in common usage now. Last year, the same Channel Four was happy enough to show the 1939 movie Jesse James, containing reference to 'a darky called Pinky on a mule called Stinky'. So why is that less offensive than a real-life Black Labrador called 'Nigger', and a real WW2 codeword of 'Nigger'?
Reminds me of my student days; when we were in a seminar about British imperial policy in the 19th century, and someone mentioned the Kaffir War, some arse decided to take offence at the word 'Kaffir', despite the fact that was what the bloody tribesmen called themselves!

 

I know the film changed some of the historical facts- that's called screenplay.

I shall have to remind people of that when they start complaining about the new version.

 

Although annoying, it's better to change/censor a word then ban the whole film.

Good point, Marek.

 

I shall have to remind people of that when they start complaining about the new version.

I think we all have to be smart enough to know that what we see on the big screen is not necessarily what occurred, as they are made to please an audience in the particular country where they are produced.

When it is all said and done, these films have to make money.

We might be surprised with the outcome of the new Dambusters!

 

I find it annoying that it's Channel 4 who decide to censor the film, when the use of 'N' word has been used in its derogatory term on Big Brother on what seems like a daily basis (ok I know that's an exageration!)

 

I find it annoying that it's Channel 4 who decide to censor the film, when the use of 'N' word has been used in its derogatory term on Big Brother on what seems like a daily basis (ok I know that's an exageration!)

I happened once and the individual concerned was booted off within minutes.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if this thread should be locked for a day or two to allow things to cool off a little.

I think we are all agreed that 'Nigger' is a very offensive term now, but in the 1940/50's it was quite common place. Now the core of this argument is that Channel 4, who lets face it has an appaling track record, has overdubbed a classic film in order to remove this one derogatory word.

Kyt argues that it is better to remove one word than ban the film. Historian and others argue it should be left alone.

I see both sides and agree with both sides.

However, let us be realistic here, the current climate in this country is somewhat tense and can blow up in peoples faces for the smallest of imagined slights.

We are not stupid and are well aware of the history of the raid and the fact that Guy named his dog Nigger, which was a common name for a black dog of the day. We therefore understand this and have no problem with it.

However there are enough eejits, numpties and people who have such a large chip on their shoulder that they cannot walk upright and use their skin colour to get whatever they want who would pounce on this one word and scream blue murder until the remains of Guy Gibson were dug up and paraded through the street before being ritually burned before the Guardianistas.

We are intelligent and have taken the time to understand. They are thick and will not listen. That is the nature of life and society, we cannot change it overnight.

I expect the new film to either change the dogs name slightly, or to be true to Peter Jackson's word and be accurate and explain to the idiots beforehand. We shall wait and see.

Now I am watching this debate closely, and i expect it shall continue to be very interesting. However please be careful of how you phrase your arguments as we know from past experience that another person can read something different to what you intended.

Go forth and debate.

 

I happened once and the individual concerned was booted off within minutes.

Kyt,

I know it has been mentioned on another occassion and no action taken

Steve

 

Might make them intelligable though

 

Why did the elfin safety inspector allow those men to stand so close to those propellers? Was there no risk assessment in place? And why are they all white?!

 

And all that sheep skin? terribel cruelty to animals that. Disgusting. And have any of them done Equal Opportunities training? And how many smoke? We really must put a stop to that. And a dog? Around machinery! Dreadful!

 

Sounds like we have the same problem with the those idiots in the PC crowd here in the States as y'all do. The stories all sound the same, but the names are different. The so called liberals try very hard to squelch our First Amendment rights and sometimes succeed, especially on the college campus. They like to talk free speach and all that, but when it comes to rational debate about their loony ideas, then it's a whole different story.

 

Can they do rational?

 

Not even if their lives depended on.

 

I've been away for a few days and only just had time to read all of this.

The film was made many years ago and as you have all admitted times were very different.

If the film was historically inaccurate (something which I personally abhor) then the film ought to be prefaced by a statement to that effect (so that future viewers will be aware that this is a dramatisation rather than an historical account of a period in our history).

If deemed too offensive to include this word then the explanation for the dubbing should be made at this time.

To sanitise historical facts reeks of Stalinism to me and I'm not sure that I see this PC approach to art and literature very differently. Are we really too stupid to understand that times and social norms have changed? Do we really think that this is really going to alter the way that the BNP and their ilk think? We have to learn from history, not change our record of it.

On a personal level I found myself in a situation today of having to complain in fairly strong terms about the service being given by a multinational company which impacted on the services of another. The second company were very helpful but stated that that they could not suggest a way of handling the first effectively. The words "put a bomb under them" were out of my mouth - meant as it always used to mean, kick them into action - but the deathly silence and rapid termination of the call made me realise how my innocent statement, made in total frustration, had been misinterpreted by him.

If there is silence from this quarter then you know where I am!!!!

I hold absolutely no truck with racism and intolerance but we seem always to assume the worst motive and in my view have lost the ability to laugh at ourselves and silly situations become more divisive.

Sorry if that was a bit of a rant - still trying to get my earlier irritation out of my system.
CTNana