I think that historical, non-fictional events should be portrayed honestly. There was a dog named Nigger. They might omit the dog entirely, only the dog’s name was used as the codeword for the breeching of the Möhne dam. Thus, the dog’s name is an important historical datum.
Memphis Belle sucked because they didn’t pay attention to detail. They didn’t even get the costumes right! About the only thing the 1990 film had in common with the real Memphis Belle missions were that there actually was an airplane named Memphis Belle. The crew names were different, the real airplane did not get shot up like the one in the film, and so on. But people went to see it. Many of these people probably believed it. If it wasn’t ‘about’ Memphis Belle it would have been fine. They could have made up a fictional airplane. But instead they corrupted history and possibly furthered ignorance.
There’s a difference between telling a true story and telling a fictional story. Saving Private Ryan didn’t happen, but the story was a small part of the D-Day invasions. Operation Chastise was a small part of a six-year-long war, but in a film about the operation I don’t think there’s that much leeway.
But the OP is quite specifically likening the Britain of the time to Nazi Germany, which is inaccurate.
British society was homogenous then, in the 1940s (much moreso than it is now, BTW - we’re the new melting pot). Saxons, Normans etc. are ancient history and irrelevant. I know from personal experience that British people who grew up in the 1940s used, and occasionaly still use racial epithets, and still have attitudes about non-European people that are unacceptable today.
I thought I’d made it sufficiently clear that I believed that WWII changed this kind of cultural isolation for everyone, forever. One of the main points of my OP was that this kind of cultural arrogance was not unique to Germany. I also took great pains to highlight the difference between Britain’s imperialism and Germany’s. Although I’m reminded of Sam Fuller, who called his mother a hypocrite for being more appalled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki than at the rest of WWII. The only difference, he pointed out, is that the atom bomb killed people faster. To some degree, the history of Britain’s imperialism (and, by extension, that of its erstwhile colonies, like the US), have as much, if not more, to answer for in terms of the history of racist genocide. But certainly there’s no comparison when it comes to psychotic enthusiasm for the practice for its own sake between Victoria and Hitler.
Well, you are saying that changing the name of someone’s dog is reason enough to not make the movie at all. If that’s the level of trivia that you think demands scrupulous accuracy, I can’t imagine that any movie could possibly pass muster.
Sorry, that should have been drama, not fiction. My bad.
Oh, come on. It’s a minor footnote to a minor footnote. It’s not like they’re changing Churchill’s name because “Winston” didn’t test well. You can change the dogs name to practically anything without materially effecting the story. Heck, you could write the dog out altogether, and all you’d lose is a small dollop of sentimentality.
That’s just a bit different than changing the name of a dog, don’t you think?
And I kinda liked the movie. Sure, it wasn’t historically accurate. So what? The goal of any movie is to be entertaining. If real life is less interesting then fiction, real life gets the axe. Anyone who looks to movies to learn about history deserves the education they get.
I don’t see how Saving Private Ryan is acceptable license, and the new Dambusters is not. There was a real D-Day, but there was no mission like the one the film described. And yet, many people might see the film and believe that the US army sent a patrol out specifically to rescue one soldier because all his brothers died. If changing the name of a dog in a story about a minor mission that had no real impact on the course of the war is unacceptable, surely inventing an entire platoon of fictional soldiers on a non-existant mission during what was arguable the most important battle in human history is a far worse offence.
Incidentally, can you give an example of a historical movie that you think was appropriately accurate?
I am surprised at all the posts about keeping the story ‘historically accurate’ by retaining the name of a dog.
Firstly, as others have said, Hollywood (or any film hoping to attract a US audience) usually sticks an American in a lead role, whether there was one in real life or not. Box Office, not accuracy, matters.
This incident has already been mentioned (bolding mine):
‘The new Hollywood ‘Blockbuster’, ‘U-571’ portrays some astonishing events ‘based on a true story’. Here is the true story; the submarine was actually U-559 and the sailors who captured the vital Enigma machine and codebooks were British (not American) sailors from H.M.S. Petard.’
I’ve watched the original Dambusters film many times, read books on the raid and even visited one reservoir where they practiced their low-level flying.
Please feel free to compare whether you know the blanks, which I think are all far more historically relevant than whatever the dog’s name was!
The RAF (which stands for Royal Air Force) formed 617 squadron to attack the Mohne, Sorper and Eder dams.
After an initial meeting chaired by Air Vice Marshall W Sholto Douglas, it took about 3 years before the scientist Barnes Wallis designed the cylindrical-shaped bomb.
The planes used were Lancaster bombers, but there were problems until the Rolls-Royce Merlin engine was used.
The pilots practised at a numer of places, including Eyebrook reservoir, but did not master incredibly low-level flying over water until they used two ‘sighting circles’, which overlapped at the correct height.
Actually, this isn’t solely something has no US WWII equivalent - U-505 was captured on the high seas, by an American crew. I’m not arguing your point - that US filmmakers will shoe-horn an American lead into any film, no matter what it takes to do it (The Great Escape, anyone?) just that there’s some room to claim that the true story that U-571 was based upon was an American incident, rather than a British one.
I tend to have most pop culture pass over my head. But I do recall that the marketing for U-571 did include sponsoring on one of the history/science channels a documentary of the U-505 incident, with the implication that this was what had inspired the new film.
It is odd. Seems about as trivial a change as I’ve seen in a historical movie. As has been said, unless there’s some significance to the actual name of “Nigger” or on of the movie’s aims is to tackle the issue of casual racism that existed then, there’s no reason to keep the name. For one thing, it will pull almost everyone out of the movie whenever the hear it. Probably will cause giggles.
It’s not a documentary. It’s ultimately entertainment. I don’t think they should take it out because it’s offensive, but just because it’s artistically jarring. It’s not going to add much to the movie, unless it’s just one of many other scenes that highlight the differing social morals and mindset of the time, and more likely it will just make people snicker and snap them out of the “movie watching trance”. It’s highly unlikely that there won’t be much more important changes to history made in the script for convenience, so leaving in this one will be kind of like making sure an actor is wearing a tall hat to be convincing as Lincoln while at the same time not casting a man. That said, if written, directed, and acted well, in context it could be atmospheric without being jarring, but that would require the triple play…
<cole porter> “Burn, all your Shakespeare… Start, torching it now…” </cp>
Re the OP, maybe I’m just too practical-minded, but I would argue to Peter Jackson that the name of the dog (and the associated codeword) should be changed: not for reasons of storytelling economy (i.e. minimizing distraction) or modern sensitivity (which I think is misplaced in historical fiction) but because this minor but not totally insignificant divergence from fact will inevitably trigger a public debate very much like the one occurring in this thread, except somewhat higher profile, conducted between mock-outraged fake-tan bloviators on the instapundit cable shows, which will serve as free publicity for the film, increase awareness of its release, and thereby pad, even if slightly, its box-office take.
In those days Nigger had the same impact as Limey or Yank or Paddy .
Of course that was before "Chip on the shoulder " gliberals started taking offence at anything possible just so long as they could demonstrate how outraged they were by anything anywhere anytime .
Nigger is a corruption of Negro which when used by racist bigots is a contemptuous term,but those same bigots would be expressing just as much contempt if they used the term Afro American ,Black or Coloured .
Its whats in their mind that is significant not the terminology they use.
And before people say that as a “whitey” I dont understand what its like to be addressed by a perjorative term ,I have known Irish people (real ones not “plastic Paddys” from the U.S.)who have been brought up from birth to hate and despise the English and the term “Brit” is used as an insult at least as offensive as Nigger.
They were amazed when I described MYSELF as a Brit.
But thats what I am and Im incredibly proud of being one.
Personally I dont think the dog will be addressed by name in the remake ,it’ll be “here Boy”
I’m surprised the obvious solution hasn’t been mentioned yet: Rewrite the story so that the character who is Nigger’s human companion is replaced by a time-travelling Flavor Flav, who simply refers to Nigger as “Dawg” and occasionally throws in a comment that “he my nigga.”
I’m pretty sure ‘nigger’ referred to Africans. I’m quoting from memory here, but when the Major is talking about the moose head in “the Germans” episode of Fawlty Towers he says something like:
“Canadian? I didn’t think they were that clever… I dated a Canadian girl once, took her to the Oval to see England play India. She kept referring to the Indians as “niggers”. I told her “My dear girl, niggers are from Africa, those people are wogs.””
Which is an inspired bit of comedy and mocks the casual racism of that generation. I think Peter Jackson should just re-release “The Germans” on the big screen and forget about remaking “The Dambusters”.
The Memphis Belle: A Story of a Flying Fortress (1944) is one of my favourite documentaries. I had a model of the Memphis Belle when I was a kid. Seeing the 1990 film was a bit of a shock, as it was something completely different from what I expected. It’s true that Wyler’s film was composed of shots from several missions and that it’s a propaganda film; but AFAIK it didn’t just make things up. The 1990 film didn’t even use the names of the crew!
Every dramatic film is told from one person’s viewpoint and contains inaccuracies. But when it comes to airplane stories I’m more critical. It’s just the way I am. I like The Great Escape even though it has an American in it. (His insignia indicate that he may have been in the Eagle Squadron – ‘Yanks in the RAF’.) But to me there is a difference between adding characters or using a little creative license to increase the drama and changing a fact simply because people may be offended.
I’m the type of person who, if he sees a film that’s historically interesting, will look for more information about the incident – on the web, seeking documentaries, or buying books. And since I do like history, I like the facts to be accurate. In the case of Gibson’s dog, it wouldn’t matter in a fiction. Call him Lassie. But in a film that purports to be a dramatisation of an actual historical event, it is what it is. As a filmgoer I ask, 'Why did he name his dog “Nigger”? Was he a racist? Why didn’t anyone call him on it?" And that would prompt me to learn more about the attitudes at the time and why it was acceptable. From a modern context it’s interesting to me. I know that I’m in the minority and that most people who go to see movies want to be excited rather than informed. They want ‘history’ wrapped in pretty paper and tied with a bow. (Not saying you do, of course; just speaking generally.) But history can be disturbing. If something disturbing prompts someone to look into something further, then I think it’s worth it.
Something occured to me just now. Suppose a person knows the dog’s name and it offends him enough to lobby to have it changed. He’d still know the fact, even if he prevented others from knowing it. I think that withholding facts one finds personally offensive is dishonest.
But if it was just the dog, it wouldn’t be an issue. What I’m talking about is the code word that the pilot radioed back to indicate that he was successful. The dog exists to explain the code word. It’s not a minor detail.
Also, I think it’s important for people who want to portray history to get the time period right. I’m pretty sure Jackson will want to have characterization that rises above the ordinary “slam-bang” action picture, or he’d pass the project on to The Rock. This is that character. Again, the guy was kind of a dick, apparently.
It would probably present a “mixed message” if it was the story of Western Civilization’s glorious crusade against barbarism and evil in Europe, but it’s not that story. It’s the story of a war of self-defense.
So, if they’d blown up the dam via canoe, you’d be okay with them changing the dog’s name?
Can you explain the difference? If you’re interested in historical accuracy, inventing people out of whole cloth and sticking them into the story seems a far, far greater insult to truth than changing the name of someone’s pet.
All of which sounds like a good reason to change the dog’s name. If people are inspired by this movie to read more about the actual events behind the movie, it’s most likely going to be because of the destruction of the dams, not because the dog was named “Nigger.” If you don’t change the dog’s name, there’s going to be a significant number of people who aren’t going to be interested in the film, because it’s apparently about a racist, and even casts him as a hero. Those people are going to be less likely to learn more about the actual events behind the movie. A movie can be an interesting and accurate treatise on a historical event. But it can also serve as, essentially, advertising for that event. Wrap the history up with a big bow, and let those who are interested in it do the unwrapping, and those who just want to see a good movie can be satisfied with the pretty packaging.
Sure, but the dog doesn’t have to be named “Nigger” to include that scene in the movie. Dramatically, the scene is the same: beloved company mascot becomes codeword for mission accomplished. The scene works the same if the mascot is named Nigger, or Trigger, or Dave the Wonder Chihuahua.
