Peter Jackson and the N word

Cafe Society
1

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 . . .

2

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

3

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?

4

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.

5

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

6

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?

7

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

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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

13

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…

14

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.

15

I would change the name.

16

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.

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.”

17

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.

18

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.

19

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

20

I’d say in the states it’s more known as “That movie that’s in the background of The Wall.”