| Author |
 Topic  |
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
 Posted - 10/05/2006 : 10:48:44
|
Let's all take a few paces back and look at some bigger-picture stuff.
FWFR is an international site and there are great cultural differences regarding these issues. This affects individual FWFR attitudes to reviews. So let's discuss - without getting diverted by any specific reviews ... since Catuli asked a general quesiton.
Being an ex-pat Yank, I can only speak to prevailing attitudes in the US and UK, but perhaps others can make similar observations. And I hereby declare I am against ALL censorship. I mean it. All. I believe there are other ways to deal with what offends, and they mostly involve a far more effective mechanism for disseminating all the information, all sides of the issue. History tells us that repression almost always leads to tragedy either of a personal or socio-cultural nature.
NUDITY/LANGUAGE and the MESSAGES THEY SEND
So-called Page Three girls - usually bare-breasted - are commonplace on British news-stands ... yes, even where children can see them. This shocks many visitors, not only Americans, but Europe generally has a far more relaxed attitude to images of the naked body. What many post-modern women object to is not that naked women are displayed, but that there are different criteria for showing naked men. This highlights the inherent contradiction in the gender appeal of nude images. Straight men often [!] find provocative images of women erotic - viz what the UK calls wank-mags. Straight men also seem to have a sexual response to lesbian imagery. But the vast majority of straight women don't have a similar reaction to images of naked men, straight or gay. Homo-erotic images of men are generally contained in publications aimed specifically at gay men, and are not on public display, and certainly not featured daily in national newspapers.
I believe UK/US society has come a long way from the days when nudie calendars were an acceptable wall decoration in the workplace -- e.g. barber shops in which children often accompanied their dads and received subtle iconographic messages about what women were for. However - in the post-modern era of so-called irony, there's been a retrogressive tendency to re-introduce imagery and language which demeans women. I'd never want to censor it, but I DO want there to be equal time for other views which challenge those assumptions.
The impact on FWFR is evident in some 'easy' references to women as sluts, whores, and otherwise sexually demeaning terms -- and this is crucial -- whether that's relevant to their characters or not! Fair enough to refer to Mrs McCabe as a whore - she runs a whorehouse and that is vital to the plot. Or the women whom Eastwood avenges in Unforgiven -- they are whores, yes. But perhaps we should be a tad more rigorous when referring to women so crassly. I believe it's particularly ambiguous when the review uses the actress's name but the review reveals her character's actions. What exactly is THAT saying!
People become offended/affected by all kinds of things. I used to volunteer as a counsellor for an organization reaching out to people with depression and suicidal tendencies and sexual disfunction. Some men - and it was all men in this case - had become severly depressed because they found arousal in everyday items such as roses or dirty dishes. They felt ashamed and couldn't function in society and were driven to feelings of suicide. Now, if one of those guys happened to be a FWFRer and read a review, for example, of the rose petals in American Beauty and became super depressed - would that mean the review should be censored? I don't think so.
POLITICAL/RELIGIOUS STUFF
It can only be healthy, IMHO, that reviews which proclaim a variety of political and/or religious views are published here. None should cause offence and none should be censored. To disallow any particular view because others don't subscribe to it reminds me of Hitler's burning books, and Stalin re-drafting history texts. If one's beliefs can be so quintessentially threatened by mere disagreement, I wonder exactly how profoundly they are held. After all, if you see a blue car and a group of people taunt you with their perception that the car is green -- would you truly believe they're correct just because they say so? Or might it spur you to question why you believe the car is blue and examine/test your beliefs. Isn't that what St Simon did in the desert? Isn't that what Acquinas and Socrates advocated?
RACIAL SLURS
Surely there's a difference between using racially dubious language in an ironic sense for a film review and using it for the express purpose of inciting racial hatred. Inciting hatred in others, fomenting illegal actions against any group is a priori against the law -- certainly in the UK and I'm pretty sure in the US. And, no, I'm still not saying such language should be censored. Merely that if it's used with an illegal intent, the force of the law should be invoked. I don't believe I've ever seen an example of such incitement on FWFR - and personally I hope I never do, for several reasons. Not least of which is that Benj might be in danger as the owner/publisher of the site.
FINALLY
Because one of my prime credos is: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you ... I think if any one of us states, either within the 4UM or by PM, that s/he is personally offended by any specific review, then that reviewer should in good conscience remove the review. Not as a gesture of censorship, but as one of compassion to a fellow human being. And, yes, I did do this -- well, not a review, but when a couple of American FWFRers slated my use of certain words in a 4UM post title saying they'd caused offense -- I have since then never used such words in the title of a posting. And those who know me will appreciate my daily language often features such words, no I'm NO prudie.
Okay - I've gone on long enough ... but actually I've been wanting to say some of this stuff for a while.
|
Edited by - BaftaBaby on 10/05/2006 10:55:30 |
 |
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 13:52:16
|
| I can assure you there's definitely nothing illegal about using racial slurs in the US, regardless of the intent. Merely hurting someone's feelings is not a hate crime. I know other countries may be more restrictive but using hateful language is protected by the First Amendment. |
Edited by - Downtown on 10/05/2006 14:08:13 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 14:38:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
After posting that, I have to withdraw it, since I see that Whipper has in fact got a similar review approved. However, at the time (a long time ago), people seemed to mainly agree.
The next question is whether to vote for it
or not... It is making an anti-racist comment, but I still ................think that some words should never be used outside quotations...But then, naming someone is slightly like a quotation... Hhmmm...
Just as background for those of you who are not familiar with "The Dambusters" its a true story about a specially assembled squadron who are to bomb German dams (as opposed to Dreseden when they bombed German dames instead, possibly due to a typographical error).
The leader of the Squadron has a black dog, named Nigger. In the context of the film the name is not overtly racist - it seems that, at that time in the UK it was entirely OK to call a black dog Nigger. All the airmen are fond of the dog and happily smile "Hello Nigger" when it walks around the base.
Anyway, just before the mission, from which many of the aircrew will not return, Nigger gets run over and killed by a passing vehicle, much to the upset of all (not least Nigger himself).
It struck me that "the Nigger" - and I use the term here because that is how the Black person is effectively portrayed as a character-type in the films I'm thinking of - is frequently the first person in a group to be killed off by whatever is threatening the group.
Naturally I was wary about writing this review because of the danger of being misunderstood. However, that's a risk I decided to take because its actually, as Sal says, an anti-racist view and denigrates (God I'm good with words sometimes!) and ridicules racist values. And also because it's terrifically funny, IMHO. A lot of that humour is in the tension created by the use of the N word.
I was particularly relieved/pleased that MGuyX, who is the only fourumite I know to be black, said it was a great review which everyone should vote for.
So, I would answer BaftaBabe's view that if anyone is offended by a review the writer should in good conscience delete it, you are wrong. How can you delete something in "good conscience" if your conscience tells you it's OK? You can't really believe that we should pander to the least perceptive amongst us for the sake of not hurting their misplaced feelings which may well be fuelled by an unwillingness to examine racism rather than a revulsion of it. Many people are really uncomfortable with the N word but pretty comfortable with racism! Surely we would be better off the other way around.
And so, if you haven't voted already for my review, here's your chance:
An anti-racist review
|
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 15:47:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I can assure you there's definitely nothing illegal about using racial slurs in the US, regardless of the intent. Merely hurting someone's feelings is not a hate crime. I know other countries may be more restrictive but using hateful language is protected by the First Amendment.
I didn't actually say "racial slurs" were illegal; I said "inciting racial hatred" was in the UK, and I'm pretty sure is also the case in America, as would be any incitement leading to violence. So one may be permitted to call another person a "whatever," but one cannot use language to whip up hatred against people and/or their ethnic, racial origins. I don't know the nitty-gritty of the law, but I was taught that First Amendment rights come with certain restrictions -- for example, it is NOT legal to shout Fire! in a crowded place [if no such fire exists] because it may likely result in injury or death and therefore manslaughter or conspiracy. Yeah, I know the famous Hitchcock scene  There's a degree of interpretation; I think certain US shock-jocks get away with some of their broadcast bile because they're not actually saying - "go out and kill these - whatevers -." Incitement is the key word, closely followed by intent.
quote:
Originally posted by Whipper
So, I would answer BaftaBabe's view that if anyone is offended by a review the writer should in good conscience delete it, you are wrong. How can you delete something in "good conscience" if your conscience tells you it's OK? You can't really believe that we should pander to the least perceptive amongst us for the sake of not hurting their misplaced feelings which may well be fuelled by an unwillingness to examine racism rather than a revulsion of it. Many people are really uncomfortable with the N word but pretty comfortable with racism! Surely we would be better off the other way around.
Okay - good point. I'll revise slightly. What I mean by "good conscience" - is that I become convinced by someone's explanation that what I've said/written genuinely offends them in some moral way. People may not like the word nigger or cunt but I think they'd have to make a moral case that they were genuinely offended. For me merely not liking something isn't even on the same scale as being offended by it. If something is genuinely hurtful - well, I really don't want to cause anyone pain.
For myself - nothing anyone could say to or about me would cause me pain, unless they had my closest love and affection. And, much as I'm really fond of you all -- none of you is actually in that category [should I say Yet?]. But we're speaking about film reviews - and I simply couldn't take any of them that personally. As my mini-essay on the sexist stuff in the first post shows. So the issue has to be one of potential litigation in the face of publication. I do know there are currently many conferences and forums debating such points of international law vis-a-vis the web. Since it's impossible to impose any national law upon the whole, is it possible to draft tenets of intenational law via a global body, such as the UN? There are those who believe the web has already begun to make everyone re-think the very concept of "law." And that's bound to affect language, expression, the arts.
Which reminds me -- better get back to work 
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 16:40:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
[brquote:
Originally posted by Whipper
So, I would answer BaftaBabe's view that if anyone is offended by a review the writer should in good conscience delete it, you are wrong. How can you delete something in "good conscience" if your conscience tells you it's OK? You can't really believe that we should pander to the least perceptive amongst us for the sake of not hurting their misplaced feelings which may well be fuelled by an unwillingness to examine racism rather than a revulsion of it. Many people are really uncomfortable with the N word but pretty comfortable with racism! Surely we would be better off the other way around.
Okay - good point. I'll revise slightly. What I mean by "good conscience" - is that I become convinced by someone's explanation that what I've said/written genuinely offends them in some moral way. People may not like the word nigger or cunt but I think they'd have to make a moral case that they were genuinely offended. For me merely not liking something isn't even on the same scale as being offended by it. If something is genuinely hurtful - well, I really don't want to cause anyone pain.
I'm not all that sure what "moral" is in this context and I suspect there may be an ambivalence here. Let's be careful not to use moral as meaning those things we believe and others don't, or those things we believe reasonable to believe (even if we personally don't believe them) but not those things we believe would be unreasonable to believe, even if others do. [Donald Rumsfeld helped me with that sentence.  ]
Any objection we are reasonably thinking of in this context can be said to be moral. Even someone who said "I think the use of the n word is rude" would be making a moral objection because being rude can hurt other peoples' feelings. Or even "I understand your review but others may not and take offence so don't publish it" is making a moral argument. These people may well be genuinely hurt by the review, although I do not wish it so.
No, the writer must apply his own moral position and, in some cases if necessary, be prepared to cause pain to those he believes to be oversensitive, misunderstanding or just plain misguided.
Provided the purpose of the review is not to cause pain and the writer is prepared to consider objections, then if he cannot be persuaded that the review causes more pain than he believes is worthwhile then the writer's obligation is to not delete the review.
Actually I'm wondering whether the idea that anything which causes moral offence should be deleted is just a back-door attempt to prevent The Fox Boy ever regaining the no. 1 spot! If that's the case I might consider changing my position. 
Note: The masculine terms used in this reply should be taken to include the feminine. No slur against girlies was intended, bless them. |
|
|
|
Stalean 
"Back...OMG"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 17:53:02
|
| Not to make light of this discussion, but anyone wanting to get-over any uncomfortableness of the words "cunt" or "nigger" (including any others you may think of) need only watch several episodes of "Deadwood." |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 18:54:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
The leader of the Squadron has a black dog, named Nigger. In the context of the film the name is not overtly racist - it seems that, at that time in the UK it was entirely OK to call a black dog Nigger.
Perhaps not overtly racist, but is it altogether non-racist? I'm not so sure. The fact that this name was used means that they were racist. I'm undecided as to whether it would be better not to mention this name at all now. However, your anti-racist review (and I don't think you needed to explain it! ) is at least the best possible context.
quote:
I was particularly relieved/pleased that MGuyX, who is the only fourumite I know to be black, said it was a great review which everyone should vote for.
This certainly is a genuine endorsement, but it is still subjective. MguyX may or may not have similar views to the majority of black people as to when this term may be used.
I have known people defend the use of the word 'coloured' because they have an elderly black neighbour who uses it. Since this term was generally considered offensive by the time I was born, this reasoning holds no water with me. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 19:10:19
|
B.B., I completely agree with you.
As I mentioned above, why is it that sexist jokes are more acceptable than racist ones? (Yes, there are racist jokes on here, but fewer.) Any sexist, homophobic or anti-disability term seems to be held to be acceptable in any kind of wordplay (however feeble). Could "n*****" be used in this way? Say if there were a film in which some black women were in their underwear (probably there is), would "N*****s, knickers" be deemed appropriate? I don't think so. Conversely, any mediocre "ho/fag/cripple" review gets a bunch of votes.
I have also talked at length before about this 'intention' notion. Yes, it is people's intentions that are the main thing BUT... intentions are not transmitted via telepathy - they are transmitted via words. So intention can only override contradictory use of words if the listener/reader happens to already be certain of the speaker/writer's viewpoint. When in doubt, it is the content of the words to which we must refer. Further, even if the intention happens to be clear, individuals do not own words. Words come with their own complex meanings (very much including nuances and implications) that are not disposable should the speaker/writer prefer. If a word was coined in an offensive context, that inherent offensiveness does not just evaporate. |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 19:55:42
|
I understood what you meant, bafta, but first amendment protections go pretty far. The KKK is devoted to inciting racial hatred...that's all they do. And sickening as it may be, they have every legal right to hold a rally and declare to anyone who wants to listen - or happens to be within earshot - that black people are evil and ruining the country (or whatever) and nobody should hire them. Likewise, The Minutemen have every right to say that the country is being overrun with "filthy Mexicans" who are stealing our jobs and they have too many babies and they're going to take over the country blah blah blah. All of that is inciting racial hatred and it's all perfectly legal.
The only thing you can't do is intentionally incite VIOLENCE. But even there the standard is pretty high before the courts will allow you to limit someone's right to free speech. If someone holds a "let's get 'em!" rally where they say everyone should go out and beat up an immigrant and that's exactly what happens, that would be illegal. But if someone's merely ranting about immigrants - even if they're using nasty, hate-filled language - and someone else is listening and they take it upon themselves to commit an act of violence, it's the person who commited the act that's responsible, not the person that used hate speech.
One of the things this country stands for is the right to be against everything this country stands for. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 19:57:17
|
I've struggled a few times in writing reviews so far. I'm not prone to use words such as c*nt (which personally I find horribly offensive) or "the N word" as they are words which seem to be designed to offend. Having said that, I've found myself sitting on review for a few weeks now regarding Pulp Fiction and the use of nigger. It's appropriate in context as it's a word Samuel L. Jackson's character uses at will, regarding himself and other blacks in the film. Then I think about how, in my small mostly racist town, I've resorted to dragging a picture of my 2 year old nephew out and asking the joke teller to explain that joke to him, since his mommy's black. THEN I turn around and feel guilty in using him to put the joke teller in his place, because in some sense, I feel like it's exploiting the dear little feller. Or maybe it's my own ambiguous conscience that's in conflict.
I suppose there's a valid point to be made regarding the use of a given word by the group toward whom it's targeted. Then it seems like it weakens the power of that word as a slur. There is such a duality of standards regarding some words that it's not easy to say what is correct. No one wants to be the PC police, and I think that in a forum such as FWFR, whether the use of a term is inappropriate is a matter of context. Should we use the word nigger to write a review of Malcolm X, or Mississippi Burning? No, probably not. Should we use it in a review of a film where Samuel L. Jackson or Denzel uses it to apply to himself? It's probably okay. As Whippersnapper said earlier, at times, the humor comes from the tension the word creates.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 19:57:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
B.B., I completely agree with you.
As I mentioned above, why is it that sexist jokes are more acceptable than racist ones? (Yes, there are racist jokes on here, but fewer.)
Perhaps it's because there are only two genders and neither of them is a minority. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:17:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Perhaps it's because there are only two genders and neither of them is a minority.
By strange coincidence, I made the same guess on here in the past, and it was rightly pointed out to me that an ethnic minority (e.g. the former South African regime) may very well still be racist. Also, this would not cover the homophobia and disability prejudice cases. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:26:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
And sickening as it may be, they have every legal right to hold a rally and declare to anyone who wants to listen - or happens to be within earshot - that black people are evil and ruining the country (or whatever) and nobody should hire them.
But... wouldn't it be illegal for them to act on this? Surely they couldn't (legally) choose not to hire someone on the basis that black people were no good.
Anyway, we should not attempt to follow a particular country's laws in discussing what is suitable for F.W.F.R. (or if we should, we should follow British law since this is a British site). Rather, we should do what is ethically right. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:29:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by wildhartlivie
I suppose there's a valid point to be made regarding the use of a given word by the group toward whom it's targeted. Then it seems like it weakens the power of that word as a slur.
Quite. This is an unfortunate practice by some people, but it should never be taken by members of other groups to mean that they can use these terms in the same way. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 10/05/2006 : 20:48:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Quite. This is an unfortunate practice by some people, but it should never be taken by members of other groups to mean that they can use these terms in the same way.
Nor can they, really.
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
But... wouldn't it be illegal for them to act on this? Surely they couldn't (legally) choose not to hire someone on the basis that black people were no good.
Sure it's illegal, which is why that's never the reason that's given. But it happens, all the time.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Language Restriction
