Not really. In order for the movie to be this kind of deep and captivating glimpse into the conflicted psyche of those days, that means the director will need to place some kind of emphasis on the dog’s name that really is not relevant at all…
Hero: “And we shall call him… <cue the crescendo of Schlinder’s List violins, camera zooms in ever so slightly, actor’s face turns into the light, a muscle in his jaw twitching>…Nig-ger.” (fade into black)
…thus giving it more significance than what is historically indicated just to make some kind of cinematic point.
But what do I know? (I’m not an expert in the art of movie-making, so the question is not rhetorical.)
“Lost his mind”? Not at all. Children should learn history, & yes, English, in school. We don’t need Hercules speaking in an up-to-date California accent, we need real education–beyond what the film can cover in depth–in educational institutions. And the schools ought to be honest about real history so children don’t grow up to be sneering ignoramuses who snigger at an Indian man named Dikshit & protest about Jim being called “Nigger Jim.”
Oh, good grief. That’s a horrifyingly provincial American standard of relative offensiveness.
This correlates with the fact that the outrage over “Nigger,” ever being spoken, ever, is based in the totally provincial, ignorant frame of reference of Americans who expect everything to cater to them.
Standing up and shouting “Won’t somebody think of the children?” is strange enough, but this thread wasn’t actually about children in the first place. What does Peter Jackson’s artistic license have to do with public education?
If it isn’t, “Won’t somebody think of the children?” that wants it banned, what is it? Some even more inane theory that you can’t use words that offend grown adults who should have long ago learned that while sticks & stones may break their bones, words will never hurt them?
I disagree; THAT would be whitewashing it. It was a systemically racist society; I doubt if any of the people he came into daily contact with ever lifted an eyebrow. That’s the historically important context that requires keeping the name, IMO. Britain was as systemically racist as Germany, they just didn’t devote the national might to realizing the most extreme, psychotic manifestation of that racism. They simply winked at it, and expected things to continue like that forever: with Englishmen at the top of the world, and all darkies and dogs in their eternal place. WWII changed all that, forever. The blithe racism of naming the base’s mascot Nigger is, thus, if you ask me, highlighted as the most appalling cultural naivete. A naivete exposed–if not, unfortunately, eradicated–by the events of WWII.
Again, I don’t see how Britain was more racist than any other western society back then. Ethnically homogenous societies tend to be prejudiced against people of different ethnicities. You’re drawing that out to a parallel between early twentieth century Britain and Nazi Germany in a way that doesn’t seem justified to me. “Britain was as systemically racist as Germany”? Like, we exterminated millions of Jews in death camps in Surrey? What do you mean by that?
…Just to clear a few things up: while Peter Jackson is producing the movie, it will be directed by Christian Rivers and written by Stephen Fry. A couple of statements Jackson has made about this issue:
So the filmakers are well aware that which ever decision they make: people will be upset. I have faith that Jackson and crew will make the right decision that will work for the movie: and I look forward to seeing this movie on the big screen…
Well, first of all, no one wants anything banned in this thread, they’re just discussing if using the dog’s real name would add or detract from the experience of the film. Which is hard to answer at this point, because we don’t really have a clear idea of what sort of film it’s supposed to be. If Jackson wants to make a film that’s a nuanced exploration of race and class prejudice in mid-20th century Europe, then of course, he should keep the dog’s name. On the other hand, if he wants to make a slam-bang action adventure film, he’d be better advised to change the dog’s name. The reason for this, in the latter case, is that slam-bang adventure is meant to be a form of escapism, and having the dog be named “Nigger” would get in the way of that. It’s not that it’s offensive (although certainly, many would crouch their arguments against it in terms of offense) so much as just a general bring-down. If the film is intended as escapism, reminders of that sort of pervasive, institutionalized racism would be just the sort of thing the audience is trying to escape from.
No one is saying in this thread that Britain was worse than other western societies. Just arguing that the dog’s name is a way to highlight what was accepted at the time, as normal. ISTR that Britain, for all the class consciousness, and associated racism, had none of the de jure seperate but equal BS that was prevalent in the US.
Since when is British society ‘ethnically homogenous’? English society is not as aggressive a melting pot as the US, but egads, between the Normans, the Saxons, the Vikings, and other less catastrophic invasions you can’t find a pure English genotype even if you dig.
Funny that a major filmmaker is arguing that it’s the job of a documentary to judge and moralize, while the job of a dramatic film producer is to teach people history the way it really happened. Things have changed, haven’t they?