The Dambusters being re-made.

[PaulB]

well, that just makes it more confusing, i'm assuming that we've been talking about guy gibson, the first leader of 617

Yes, we are talking about GUY Gibson. Mel Gibson bought the film rights some time ago and as we're discussing racism....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

We don't shy from viewing films about the US deep south which show historical (even contemporary) scenes where the way in which the word is used is quite sickening - and we shouldn't shy away from that if we want to address matters of fact.

We might not shy away from viewing them but the broadcasters shy away from showing them...... when was the last time Tom & Jerry were shown at all on TV let alone in original form complete with "Mammy Two Shoes" as vocally portrayed by Lillian Randolph.......

 

[Chuffy]

I disagree, its FACT that they used those words and they still do although it is less acceptable.

If you think that the two things are within a million miles of being comparable then there’s not much point trying to argue…

Oh by the way, I bet that 99% of the real characters smoked. Bet you won't see a single fag in the film....
When will these film-making fools stop lying to us?

 

[Chuffy]

We might not shy away from viewing them but the broadcasters shy away from showing them...... when was the last time Tom & Jerry were shown at all on TV let alone in original form complete with "Mammy Two Shoes" as vocally portrayed by Lillian Randolph.......

They're very old. That might explain it. I believe other animated diversions have been produced in the 69 years since T&J started up....*













* - T&J are the best though.

 

[Andy in Sig]

We might not shy away from viewing them but the broadcasters shy away from showing them...... when was the last time Tom & Jerry were shown at all on TV let alone in original form complete with "Mammy Two Shoes" as vocally portrayed by Lillian Randolph.......

You mean that you reckon that the telly wouldn't show things like In The Heat Of The Night or that film with Kiefer Sutherland where he plays a redneck who rapes and murders a little black girl?

 

[Globalti]

The actors will be too fat. In the forties most people were slim, even skeletally thin especially during and after the war. Have you ever noticed how cowboys in modern films look wrong because American actors aren't thin any more?

 

[Mr Pig]

Oh by the way, I bet that 99% of the real characters smoked. Bet you won't see a single fag in the film....

I hope you do. Recently I saw a couple of episodes of a TV series called Mad Men. Not really my thing but I thought it was very well produced and caught the rose-tinted image of sixties America brilliantly. Everyone smoked in it.

Whether the guy called his dog Nigger for racist reasons or not is completely irrelevant. The fact is that he did it and if the dog is included in the new film it should be retained. It is the 'insignificant' details like this that help us to define the times that we're being told about and consider the values held then. Were people more openly racist then or simply more innocent? These issues are not trivial, they are the context in which the larger events take place and are given meaning. The story is not about bombs, it is about humans.

I would also ague that the dog is a significant character in the story. His presence on the airbase draws into relief the contrast between the simple life enjoyed by a dog and the worries of those who must choose to risk their lives for reasons beyond their control. An airman petting the dog is a poignant moment.

Also, the death of the dog is significant to the story. Is his death, right on the cusp of the first raid, considered a bad omen? Is it seen as a shadow of the death to come? Would it be a real downer for men already staring death in the teeth? However it is seen, the dog matters and should be in the story.

 

[rich p]

If you think that the two things are within a million miles of being comparable then there’s not much point trying to argue…

Oh by the way, I bet that 99% of the real characters smoked. Bet you won't see a single fag in the film....
When will these film-making fools stop lying to us?

TBH I'm always amazed at how many characters in TV progs smoke. It seems anomolous these days and I wonder if most actors smoke in real life or have to act it. Ashes to Ashes, for instance, is a non-stop chain smoke.

 

[Chuffy]

Also, the death of the dog is significant to the story. Is his death, right on the cusp of the first raid, considered a bad omen? Is it seen as a shadow of the death to come? Would it be a real downer for men already staring death in the teeth? However it is seen, the dog matters and should be in the story.

You can relax. The dog is definitely in the film. Don't tell anyone but they might change it's name....
Of course it'll be a pocket sized chihuahu, otherwise the Paris Hilton generation won't understand.

 

[PaulB]

Whether the guy called his dog Nigger for racist reasons or not is completely irrelevant.

Talk about missing the point.

 

[Mr Pig]

Talk about missing the point.

I'm not. It should be in the film irrespective of why he chose the name.

 

[Andy in Sig]

<blows raspberry>

There are valid arguments to be made either way. What confuses me is the way that the mere possibility of a name change gets people all hot under the collar and blustering rubbish about 're-writing history'. Lets be quite clear, changing the name makes no difference to the story. We're not even remotely close to U-571 territory here.
This re-make has been around for a while now and the thing that seems to recur in any discussion is "I hope they don't change the name of the dog"....

People of that wartime generation get upset because it's their history and we shoud all get upset because it is a part of our collective bigger history and utimately it is immaturity which leads people to think that modern people are incapable of dealing with a now offensive word which was used innocently in those times. We have no right to play with their history.

 

[Mr Pig]

People of that wartime generation get upset because it's their history... We have no right to play with their history.

Well said.

 

[yello]

[devil's advocate mode]

What happens if their version of history is factually incorrect (for whatever reason)? Are we not allowed to correct it?

We know, for instance, that the film makers of this new film have access to (now de-classified) information, info not available to the previous film makers. If this info actually contradicts the previously held view, can this not be used?

I mean, what happens if the dog's name was actually Fido?

 

[PaulB]

I mean, what happens if the dogs name was actually Fido?

Racialist