F-Word Politics
We listened today to a podcast of a Ken Burns interview, mostly concerning his upcoming documentary on World War II. The host introduced the documentary with an explanation that the interview was being aired well after it took place, delayed by the controversy surrounding the documentary. That pricked my ears up. Though Burns handles some big subjects, he approaches them with an all-embracing perspective, occasionally shading into a wishy-washy “everyone’s right” sentiment. I’ve never known him to rile any but the True Believers of one or more extreme views of history.
The controversy mentioned in the interview’s introduction proved to be over the use of a few four-letter words. Literally, a few: three points in the show use them in reporting soldiers’ speech. Big, hairy deal. I suspect the host exaggerated. Allowing three f-words to delay airing the documentary itself is mighty silly, but plausible in the realm of bureaucracy, especially concerning the FCC, with its bizarre “we can’t tell you whether that’s illegal until after you air it” policy. Allowing three f-words to delay airing a discussion about the show in which they appear is, I suppose, possible, but only remotely.
Still, somebody has raised a stink about f-word in a show about World War II, possibly involving a lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit. Whether or not anybody will pay much attention, someone cared enough to interfere with the appearance of f-word to interfere with a very uncontroversial documentarian. Saving Private Ryan faced similar objections. Apparently, some people feel it’s okay to show human beings killing each other in gruesome ways, but not to show them cursing over the fact.
What’s wrong with these people?! If, as Santayana claims, a fanatic is someone who redoubles his efforts while losing sight of his objective, I think the label applies. The whole point of censoring f-word is to protect impressionable minds from exposure to themes considered suitable only for mature audiences. If an impressionable mind can’t handle an obscene word removed from its natural context, it definitely can’t handle the obscenities of war and genocide. It’s bad enough that a vocal element of society wants to sanitize history; knowing they want to sanitize it for specious reasons drives me nuts. Knowing that the powerful FCC actually takes its cue from this mentality is terrifying. Stupid mother-f-worders.
Comments
You do raise a good point. People get all up in arms if someone drops an F-bomb on television, but are more than happy to show people at their worst. The news is by far the leading offender, quick to the scene in its continuing quest for that exclusive, and to hell with those who might be horrified by said sights.
It's actually kind of funny because war is harsh. The military is harsh. Particularly in combat situations. I actually had the benefit of attending a high school and having a history class with a retired marine teaching it. Thus, he had no qualms about getting his hand on documentaries which showed the darker sides of war, whether it be WWII and footage showing discoveries at concentration camps... or during the Vietnam war and the slow degeneration of the soldier's psyche who knew what their martality rate was. In the latter, you got footage of soldiers quite literally living each day as if it was their last, and the debauchery was rampant.
I could see apprehension if it were a drama, and the use of the word was excessive. However, if it's a documentary where you hear the f-bomb in a real life setting and use of said word isn't overly excessive, then some folks need to not let their panties get in a bunch.
Dumb fuckers.
Posted by: Jim | March 30, 2007 5:22 AM