Peter Jackson and the N word

[lissener]

So Peter Jackson is set to produce a remake of the classic British war film, The Dambusters, 1954. Hearing this, I blew the dust off our copy of the original and took it home and watched it.

First of all, a well made film about a fascinating subject: the development of a bomb that would skip over surface defenses and submerged steel netting to explode theretofore indestructible German dams, thereby wreaking vast damage at a single blow. (Foyle's War treated the same subject.)

Now to the interesting part. The lead pilot, in life as well as in the film, had a black lab named Nigger. He's something of a mascot at the base: "Hallo, Nigger, old boy!"

For the remake: should Jackson change the dog's name? When this film is shown on US TV, it's dubbed over as "Trigger." (Personally, I think it would be funnier if it were dubbed over as "African American." Maybe by Jesse Jackson. But anyway.)

If he includes the dog in the remake--and the radio code word for victory, by the way, was the dog's name!--and calls the dog Nigger, needless to say there will be an uproar. On the other hand, if he changes the dog's name, people will be inspired to see the original, and the fact of the real dog's name will become common knowledge. Thence, another uproar, for whitewashing history. Either way, I see uproar.

Now, I'm of the opinion that he should include the dog, and leave the name as it was. I think it's an interesting comment on the cultural arrogance of the British of that era that they think it's perfectly acceptable to name your black dog Nigger. I think it says a great deal about the general sense of cultural isolation that WWII pretty much permanently destroyed in all the nations of Europe. It suggests, to me at least, that the Brits weren't really fighting against Fascism; they were defending the British way of life. That the prewar British and German cultures had a great deal in common; they both viewed themselves with a sense of Noblesse Oblige, and considered themselves--in culture and ancestry--superior to all other nations. They were both Empire builders, which necessarily entails a bit of cultural arrogance. (Not to compare Hitler's genocidal plans with anything the British set out to do, but lord knows they left some sun-browned corpses in their wake.)

So. I say leave history be. But is that insensitive? Is my feeling of the historically resonant validity of seeing an RAF pilot cheerfully call his dog Nigger not taking into account the venom that's come to be attached to that world since it was filtered through the American South of the 20th century?

Maybe if Jackson cast Michael Richards as the pilot . . .

[middleman]

I don't think he should keep the name because I do not think 85% of the audience would appreciate the irony.

[Baldwin]

If I were doing it, I wouldn't change the dog's name. What was once a contemporary story would now be historical fiction; I hate it when historical fiction is sanitized.

Now that I think of it, when I was little we had a black dog named Tarbaby.

Did the word "nigger" ever have the same cultural significance in the UK as in America?

[mobo85]

Here's a picture of the real Nigger. He was killed before the raid, hence the use of his name as a codeword in his memory.

[Indistinguishable]

As a matter of historical fact, it would be bizarre, I think, to change the dog's name and the corresponding codeword.

[lissener]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

As a matter of historical fact, it would be bizarre, I think, to change the dog's name and the corresponding codeword.

Still, devil's advocate here, this movie is pretty G rated, but I can't play it in the store. Shouldn't that be taken into account?

Would keeping the name historically accurate engender discussion, or elicit simpleminded outrage?

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Originally Posted by lissener

the classic British war film, The Dambusters, 1954.

[hijack]Wasn't that the movie Bob Geldof was watching in the movie The Wall? Before he went berserk and smashed up everything? [/hijack]

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan

[hijack]Wasn't that the movie Bob Geldof was watching in the movie The Wall? Before he went berserk and smashed up everything? [/hijack]

Yes. Complete with mentions of the dog's name. (Which, no doubt, were the true trigger for his sudden violent outburst)

[Larry Borgia]

They should change the dog's name to "African-American."

Seriously they should change the dog's name. They'll almost certainly be taking other historical licenses anyway. Leaving the name will cause needless controversy.

[Ximenean]

Originally Posted by lissener

I think it's an interesting comment on the cultural arrogance of the British of that era that they think it's perfectly acceptable to name your black dog Nigger. I think it says a great deal about the general sense of cultural isolation that WWII pretty much permanently destroyed in all the nations of Europe. It suggests, to me at least, that the Brits weren't really fighting against Fascism; they were defending the British way of life. That the prewar British and German cultures had a great deal in common; they both viewed themselves with a sense of Noblesse Oblige, and considered themselves--in culture and ancestry--superior to all other nations. They were both Empire builders, which necessarily entails a bit of cultural arrogance.

I think people throughout Europe were pretty free and easy with terms like "nigger" or their local equivalents back then, not just citizens of the imperial powers. They just were not that familiar with "non-Caucasian" people. In eastern Europe, where what immigration there has been has come mainly from neighboring countries, attitudes to non-European-looking people can still be shockingly, um, old-fashioned.

[Indistinguishable]

There's a difference between the kinds of historical license one takes to keep a story moving fluidly and the sort of alteration being proposed here.

I mean, if audiences end up finding the word "Nigger" offensive in this context... well, good. They're reacting to the actual history of the matter; it's not the filmmaker's fault that that's how it went, and those are the emotions it would trigger.

I don't know; I can kinda see how one could say that name "Nigger" would become a distraction from the film which was more trouble than it was worth, but I just can't get behind a change like this. (The change would bring complaints too, so, it's not clear which way the balance of "more trouble than it was worth" will go). To whitewash over the matter of the dog's name seems cowardly and dishonest. It'd be like watching a film in which the Enola Gay was renamed. Changing an iconic name in a historical work strikes me as so ridiculous.

[pizzabrat]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

They should change the dog's name to "African-American."

Originally Posted by lissener

Personally, I think it would be funnier if it were dubbed over as "African American."

:: pitying sigh ::...do you guys know anything about comedy? Something as obvious as changing a character named "Nigger" to "African-American" ain't it.

[WordMan]

If Hollywood can change the WW2 heroes who stole the strategically-essential Enigma encoding device from the Germans from English to Americans (can't remember the name of that film, but it was notorious for making that switch), you can rest assured that they will change the name of the dog...

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by pizzabrat

:: pitying sigh ::...do you guys know anything about comedy? Something as obvious as changing a character named "Nigger" to "African-American" ain't it.

Perhaps keeping the dog's name as "Nigger", but whenever someone says it, they are interrupted by a large noise of some sort or another?

I say, this is the ideal compromise.

[carnivorousplant]

I would change the name.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

There's a difference between the kinds of historical license one takes to keep a story moving fluidly and the sort of alteration being proposed here.

I mean, if audiences end up finding the word "Nigger" offensive in this context... well, good. They're reacting to the actual history of the matter; it's not the filmmaker's fault that that's how it went, and those are the emotions it would trigger.

I don't know; I can kinda see how one could say that name "Nigger" would become a distraction from the film which was more trouble than it was worth, but I just can't get behind a change like this. (The change would bring complaints too, so, it's not clear which way the balance of "more trouble than it was worth" will go). To whitewash over the matter of the dog's name seems cowardly and dishonest. It'd be like watching a film in which the Enola Gay was renamed. Changing an iconic name in a historical work strikes me as so ridiculous.

Is it really that iconic? How many people are aware of the name of the dog owned by the captain who flew the mission to blow up the Ruhr dams? How many people are aware of the mission to blow up the Ruhr dams in the first place? It's a pretty minor historical footnote. I don't see any particular reason to keep it. By nature of the medium, the film is going to have to take all sorts of other liberties with the historical record. Sticking to your guns over this little detail would be kinda dumb.

Perhaps keeping the dog's name as "Nigger", but whenever someone says it, they are interrupted by a large noise of some sort or another?

Even better, start the film out with the following placard:

"In deference to modern sensibilities, for the purposes of this movie, the dog 'Nigger' has been renamed "Sambo Pickaninny."

[Derleth]

I'm surprised this is even a discussion. You all know they're going to add a Token Black Guy to the bomber crew, and that the TBG is going to be the one who busts the dam right when the Most Evil Nazi is standing on it, sipping his schnapps. Then all the Polish Jews working on the railroad are going to cheer because without the dam, none of them will be made into dogfood.

Given all that, the dog's name is going to be Patton. And the dog's going to be a parrot who spews obscenities at the Nazis.

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Miller

Is it really that iconic?

I think it's iconic to the extent that the original film is iconic. It's no "Enola Gay", admittedly, but it's something a fair number of people would be aware of and noticing deviations from, moreso than many other details.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

I think it's iconic to the extent that the original film is iconic. It's no "Enola Gay", admittedly, but it's something a fair number of people would be aware of and noticing deviations from, moreso than many other details.

Maybe it's better known in the UK, but over here, it's a pretty obscure movie.

[Push You Down]

I'd say in the states it's more known as "That movie that's in the background of The Wall."

[lissener]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

I think it's iconic to the extent that the original film is iconic. It's no "Enola Gay", admittedly, but it's something a fair number of people would be aware of and noticing deviations from, moreso than many other details.

More than that, judging from the current rentals of the 1957 3:10 to Yuma, a lot of people certainly will become aware of it once the Jackson-produced film is out.

[pizzabrat]

Originally Posted by Miller

Even better, start the film out with the following placard:

"In deference to modern sensibilities, for the purposes of this movie, the dog 'Nigger' has been renamed "Sambo Pickaninny."

There you go.

[delphica]

I'm having a hard time imagining how making a film in 2007 (or whenever he's going to make it), and naming the dog Nigger could result in a movie about anything other than the fact that there's a dog named Nigger. Maybe that's okay, if Peter Jackson wants to focus on the historical climate that led to a dog being cheerfully called Nigger and everyone getting right on board with it.

[BrassyPhrase]

Originally Posted by pizzabrat

:: pitying sigh ::...do you guys know anything about comedy? Something as obvious as changing a character named "Nigger" to "African-American" ain't it.

Hmmmm.....perhaps "Cracker"?

[OtakuLoki]

Reading this thread I have the impression that the majority of Dopers think that changing the dog's name is a mistake.

I can't say, now, myself.

A lot of it's going to depend upon what other changes that will have to be made to the story to make the remake palatable to modern audiences.

I think that the technological story, as it is, is quite compelling, and makes for great drama. But, having said that, the story is almost completely sexless, and from what I recall of the movie, there isn't even an attempt to have the audience identify with more than just the single bomber crew. Given the number of planes involved in these raids (Again, going off my admittedly fallible memory - weren't there three or more dams that were attacked that night?) and the losses suffered, I can't see any modern filmmaker being willing to avoid having a "Mother and Country" plane* to make the audience feel for the ones who didn't make it.

I also think that it's very likely that the story will have some sort of romantic plot shoehorned into the movie. To the detriment of the overall story, but to the benefit of the movie's box office numbers.

If the changes that I'm suggesting are going to be made, to be more clear if Jackson is going to be telling an essentially modern story set to please modern sensibilities, I don't see why there's any need to include the admittedly callous and embarassing detail of the dog's name.

If, on the other hand, the intent is to tell the story pretty much as the original movie showed it - as a mostly historical film of a most interesting raid and technological solution to a difficult problem - keep the dog's name accurate. We do no one any favors by gratuitiously removing the warts from the historical record.


*"Mother and Country" was the name of the plane in the 1990 remake of Memphis Belle that existed for no other purpose than to show the audience that *gasp* people died in the air war!

[lissener]

Originally Posted by OtakuLoki

I think that the technological story, as it is, is quite compelling, and makes for great drama. But, having said that, the story is almost completely sexless, and from what I recall of the movie, there isn't even an attempt to have the audience identify with more than just the single bomber crew. Given the number of planes involved in these raids (Again, going off my admittedly fallible memory - weren't there three or more dams that were attacked that night?) and the losses suffered, I can't see any modern filmmaker being willing to avoid having a "Mother and Country" plane* to make the audience feel for the ones who didn't make it.

For the record, the other crews were in fact a big part of the movie, but of course, as in life there was a lead pilot whose job it was to oversee the training of those crews. That's the dude with the dog.

[lissener]

Originally Posted by delphica

I'm having a hard time imagining how making a film in 2007 (or whenever he's going to make it), and naming the dog Nigger could result in a movie about anything other than the fact that there's a dog named Nigger. Maybe that's okay, if Peter Jackson wants to focus on the historical climate that led to a dog being cheerfully called Nigger and everyone getting right on board with it.

See, that's what I say: I say he should leave the name, but make it clear that he's acknowledging the cultural context that such a name signifies.

Maybe he should add a German officer with a dog named Hymie or something.

[Menocchio]

Originally Posted by delphica

I'm having a hard time imagining how making a film in 2007 (or whenever he's going to make it), and naming the dog Nigger could result in a movie about anything other than the fact that there's a dog named Nigger. Maybe that's okay, if Peter Jackson wants to focus on the historical climate that led to a dog being cheerfully called Nigger and everyone getting right on board with it.

Agreed. A film that has white people casually using the word nigger, especially to name a pet, instantly becomes about race issues. And that's not what this film will be about. They should and almost certainly will change the name.

[OtakuLoki]

lissener, I only remembered the crew of the lead pilot, myself - but I'll admit it's been a while since I've seen the film. And what I recall most vividly was the way they solved the altimeter problem that the bomb required.

[RealityChuck]

I'd change the name (Agatha Christie did). Why piss off people over such a trivial plot point?

[Snarky_Kong]

If the dog isn't in an extreme amount of scenes I don't think it'd be a big deal.

[RikWriter]

The big question is, will Peter Jackson include the Scouring of the Shire in the movie?

[lawoot]

They Should keep the dog named "Nigger", and change the name of the movie to "The Darnbusters."

[williambaskerville]

Originally Posted by RikWriter

The big question is, will Peter Jackson include the Scouring of the Shire in the movie?

No, but he will have the Swedish Air Force turn up for a crucial battle. And the middle hour will be an entirely pointless and utterly boring exploration of the boundless love between Wing Commander Gibson and his dog.

On the OP :- the name of the dog is of no historical import. It can and should be changed.

[Slithy Tove]

Keep the word in Huckleberry Finn, replace it in Dambusters

Will the remake use a cylindrical bomb as was actually used, or a spherical one as in the original movie, made when the cylinder shape was still a classified secret?

[lissener]

Originally Posted by Slithy Tove

Keep the word in Huckleberry Finn, replace it in Dambusters

Will the remake use a cylindrical bomb as was actually used, or a spherical one as in the original movie, made when the cylinder shape was still a classified secret?

Aah. I wondered why the bomb was so clumsily FXed over. I imagine they'll use the cylinder; they did in the recentish Foyle's War episode.

[Sublight]

Does changing the dog's name change the movie? If the dog's name played an important role in the story (or in the actual events, like if the pilots had chosen the German village of Nigger as their first target in memory of the dog), I'd say no, don't change it. If there were some relevant context outside the movie that would cause the dog's name to throw events within the movie into a clearer light, that is, if it added any new layer of relevance or meaning to the film (such as Nigger Jim in Huck Finn), again I'd say leave it as is.

In this case, though, it's just a distraction, and an unnecessary one. If PJ changes it, I won't feel the film has lost anything for it.

[KneadToKnow]

Why not do what George Lucas did and call the dog Chewbacca?

[Terminus Est]

Originally Posted by KneadToKnow

Why not do what George Lucas did and call the dog Chewbacca?

I thought the dog's name was Indiana.

[Argent Towers]

I'm against the whole movie as a whole, and not because I give a shit about the dog's name but because I'm against the idea of remakes in general. I think they're a waste of money and time, they rarely improve upon the original, and they make the original less special. And yeah, I know the Maltese Falcon was a remake - it doesn't count. I can't think of a single remake in recent memory that's been anything other than trash.

[KneadToKnow]

(The Dam Busters was one of the movies Lucas used, I'm told, to get the editing right for Star Wars. The Chewbacca reference was an attempt at drollery.)

[lissener]

Originally Posted by KneadToKnow

(The Dam Busters was one of the movies Lucas used, I'm told, to get the editing right for Star Wars. The Chewbacca reference was an attempt at drollery.)

Yes; he lifted the climactic sequence--Luke in the canyons of the deathstar trying to hit a very small target--practically frame for frame from The Dambusters.

[Argent Towers]

Originally Posted by WordMan

If Hollywood can change the WW2 heroes who stole the strategically-essential Enigma encoding device from the Germans from English to Americans (can't remember the name of that film, but it was notorious for making that switch), you can rest assured that they will change the name of the dog...

It was U-571, starring Matthew McCant'spellhisfuckingnamehey. Of the two submarine movies released after 2000, I really preferred K-19: The Widowmaker. Despite it getting a lot of flack for Harrison Ford's lousy Russian accent, I thought K-19 was amazingly tense and thrilling, and I also think it was great and fairly revolutionary to see an American movie with Soviets as the heroes - because there was a lot of true Soviet military heroism that's gone unsung because of American anti-communism.

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Miller

Even better, start the film out with the following placard:

"In deference to modern sensibilities, for the purposes of this movie, the dog 'Nigger' has been renamed "Sambo Pickaninny."

I was going to suggest Blacky but you just won the Internet.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Change it. Otherwise it's throwing a spanner in the works.

Change it to Nico, say, or Mica -- close but not kneejerk offensive.

[si_blakely]

I read somewhere that Peter Jackson does not intend to change the name of "Nigger". In fact, I suspect that his remake will be more historically accurate than the original, which glossed over several elements of the story.

I read "The Dambusters" as a kid. Nigger, and his interaction with Guy Gibson and the crews of 617 squadron, helps create the picture of what things were like for crews in Bomber Command at that time. They were hard drinking, hard playing young men (who would buy beer for the dog) who didn't get attached to each other or anyone else because they were all pretty likely to die. And Niggers death just before the mission prefigures the loss of crews over Germany, and adds depth to Gibsons character. It adds pressure to him just before the most difficult and important mission of his life. Interestingly, I heard an interview with a war journalist yesterday who pointed out that Gibson was actually not really liked by his crews - not something that shows up in the book.

And the scene near the end where Barnes Wallace realises that no more crews are returning and that they are probably dead gets me every time - he was a stubborn genius who had to fight to get his ideas accepted, but maybe never really thought through the risks that young men had to go through to deliver his weapons to target, and the costs in human life involved.

I hope PJ does the movie, and makes it good. The Dambusters deserve the recognition. But I like the original movie, as well

Si

[KGS]

Change the dog to a golden retriever named "Coolie". Gets the point across without the gut-level knee-jerk reaction of the N-Word.

Seriously, this is a tough one. With any other director I'd be comfortable with a name change, but P. Jackson I've always admired for his honest treatment of the source material. (Yes, I know...elves at Helm's Deep and all that...)

[Sampiro]

I wonder if they'll use a stunt-dog as well as the "actor" dog, and if so will they have the disclaimer in the credits "No Niggers were harmed during the making of this film".

Cool thread, lissener- more interesting than most race themed Great Debates.
While it's true that the dog's name is of no great historical significance, otoh it's cleaning up history for modern sensibilities but at the expense of accuracy. It also tells you a lot about the men and the times that the good guys used the name openly for a dog- that's more than trivia really. The dog's name could also highlight the moral/amoral ambiguity of war- that the good guys are working to develop and drop a bomb that is more apt to kill civilians than Nazis in a war that few would deny the complete necessity of-

I'd keep the dog's name but downplay it. But with Jackson working for big-money distribution companies I'll put 10 chips on the Red (they'll change its name rather than deal with the negative publicity) and I'll even put 1 chip on Red-22 (that the dog's new name will be an homage to a previous Jackson film- I can totally see the dog now being King Kong or Wizard).

[Mangetout]

If the intent is to portray historical events as truthfully as possible, then it would be wrong to change the name - it would be like remaking Spartacus with Nerf weapons.

[jjimm]

Introduce a scene at the beginning where a passing African-American serviceman who has somehow become involved hears the dog being called "Nigger", and work in his admonishment to the British air crews about the significance of the word, but that he'll let it pass because their work is so important and that us Euros aren't enlightened yet.

Then have him die in an early scene.