Burton Gilliam, the Texan actor who played Lyle in Blazing Saddles, talked about how uncomfortable he felt using the N-word to Cleavon Little and the other black actors. Finally, Little had to tell him that if it were real life, he’d kick Gilliam’s ass for using that slur; but he and the rest of the cast knew it was for the purposes of the story. Gilliam essentially needed permission to use the word.
Bolding mine. speaking of challenging things actors must do reminds me of a quote I read, from Sir John Gielgud, one of my favorite actors. He said “I’m an actor! Of course I can play a heterosexual!”
For you, maybe. It has gotten exponentially better for me and mine, the last couple of years notwithstanding.
A lot better 50 years ago.
I’d say that dialogue in the film, for the dialogue to be an accurate portrayal of the time, would of necessity include the slur provided the characters portrayed actually used those slurs in that time. For the film promotions today, it would not be anything other than blatant racism to use the slurs in the promotional material.
It must be tough there in Kandahar.
As a rule, soldiers don’t make much of an effort to be polite toward people trying to kill them.
True, but characters in films aren’t actually in a warzone talking off the top of their heads. There are all sorts of things that actual soldiers say and do in the heat of battle that would never be portrayed in a movie, just for ‘colour’ or supposed verisimilitude.
I suspect you meant this for this thread.
The character saying it is a racist character. I don’t think it’s possible or desirable to eliminate all the racist characters from a show about a war. If you find it necessary to eliminate the racism from a war film, logically you have to remove the fighting as well. Leaving you with a very strange (and probably stupid) story.
In the end, it’s all storytelling. “There was racism, there were racists, and those facts affected the way things happened” means IMO you can’t easily take it out.
Even if someone claims “Yes, but this particular comment or scene was gratuitous - it didn’t drive the plot” - I think it could be argued that that very gratuitousness emphasizes just how bad it was. (And again, if you must sanitize, then get the killing out of there first; nasty comments are nothing compared to the brutality of a war in the first place.)
What are the option? What non-racist words did WW2 soldiers actually use to refer to the Japanese enemy?
“Them fukin’ chapa-knees!”
I wasn’t there, but the people I’ve met who were there, when talking about the war (if not at all times) refer to those they fought against using terms that are either specifically racist or generally derogatory.
It’s apparently significantly easier to kill someone when you first deny that they’re human. I think it would be disingenuous to try to take that out of a war film.
I have to admit that it’s kind of creepy listening to a comedy that talks about Japs or Nips (e.g. I’ve been listening to old episodes of “Fibber McGee and Molly”). But a serious historical film would be a different matter.
From what I understand, when soldiers are about to go into action, they are given training to put them into a frame of mind of hatred where they will find it easy to kill the enemy without question. They are worked up into an adrenaline fuelled war and sometimes drug induced war frenzy where the enemy is not human, but some kind of wild animal to be killed.
How you capture that, especially the pungent dialogue, in a war film for public consumption might be a bit of challenge for film-makers. There are a lot of sensitive souls out there.
Also enjoyed reading the Tudyk comments on the movie 42.
As for historical movies, I guess it all has to do with execution. The movie 42 is a good example; every scene makes you cringe and wince. I understand Rachel Robinson (Jackie’s widow) participated in the movie and felt it really told the truth. Other movies, like Tarantino’s, use the words gratuitously and feel smug. If people say “a movie can’t do this” it’s one thing, if they say “this particular movie feels hamhanded,” it’s another. It can even be both historically accurate and tone deaf. Winds of War is accurate, Wouk was actually there, but the number of “J—s” per chapter does start to take its toll. If he’d written it even a decade later he might have found himself pulling back a bit. It’s not like we need a constant shower of “the J word” to get it.
"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs! " - Bill Halsey
A bit rude by modern standards.
Wouk had some harsh words for him too.
I think you guys are oversimplifying this. Yes, you are depicting the time in the past, and people in the past used these words. On the other hand, you’re also making this film in the modern day, for modern audiences to watch. So I would argue there is a balance, and it depends on the type and purpose of the film how you go about it.
I think it depends on how realistic your depiction is. Sometimes you want a version of the past that isn’t fully accurate but captures the feeling of the past. No film is entirely accurate, but some aren’t really even going for accuracy, while some mix and match. Only in the most realistic versions would I find racist slurs to be okay.
There’s audience, of course. Surely you agree it would be a bad idea in a children’s film, even if it is supposed to be an accurate look at the past. You’d just kinda avoid situations where those words would come in, or even just fudge them a little.
Then there’s the aspect of “what are you trying to say?” Someone brought up Huckleberry Finn. There was a purpose in the epithet before Jim. The argument wasn’t just “They used that word back then.” Every word of should have a purpose. If another word can accomplish that purpose, there’s no need to use the slur.
Finally, there’s the underlying message of the film. Is it just using these words as an unfortunate reality back then? Or is it portraying it as if it should be acceptable now? Is it showing racism, or excusing racism? Is it honoring this use, or showing that even people we admire can be flawed? Stuff like that.
So, while I agree that use of a slur like “Japs” is not inherently racist in a film, I think it’s far more complicated than “Did they use that word back then?” It’s more about “Why are you using it?”
As for Pearl Harbor, I’ve never seen it. I’ve heard it’s not very accurate and is more of a love story, though. If so, then I can see someone thinking it hasn’t earned “j-word” privileges. But I don’t know. I do know I’m fine with other people disagreeing, and don’t think it’s my right to tell people not to be offended on stuff where I have no skin in the game.
I’m trying to remember the recent films I’ve seen that portray the war in the Pacific and I think they avoid using the term. Like I don’t remember hearing it in Hacksaw Ridge, about the conscientious objector Desmond Doss, who won the Medal of Honor for saving 75 soldiers. But I could be wrong.