I enjoyed most of this film. And took it out on DVD because of what others had said about it. I know it was released in 1949. But I was surprised to hear the word n•••••r used three times, in the end of the film, in a deliberately derogatory manner. That's the only thing that spoilt it for me.
shareThat's how the rhyme originally went. That's why it's "tiger" now.
I did accidentally kill her father when I went to pick her up for the first date. AWKWARD!
dreadpirate, I dont understand your explanation. I too wondered about the use of that word, though it didnt seem to have the same context as our use, but i just couldnt understand it
dread, where does your signature come from?
The rhyme, as used in the movie, is the original version of "Eenie meenie...". The use of "tiger" in modern times is an alteration.
Thus, the appearance of the aforementioned word in the movie is essentially unavoiable, unless they were to decide to be the first to change "eenie meenie" - which may well have been admirable, but would've detracted horribly from the movie at the time.
Thanks for clarifying, lgron000. My sig is from episode 9 of Ask a Ninja, a series of online skits www.askaninja.com
I did accidentally kill her father when I went to pick her up for the first date. AWKWARD!
I disagree that the 'N' word was used in a 'deliberately derogatory manner'.
As the other posters state, that is indeed how the original nursery rhyme goes and is quite correct for the period that the film is set in.
Here in the UK it was certainly being used 'openly' in the mainstream media as recently as 1958, witness the bold title of the Agatha Christie book that I recently sold on ebay -
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7020665169&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&rd=1
[deleted]
Also it was set around the turn of the century
share
Only "Ns" can say the N word with abandon.
Only Jews can criticize jews -- or its "anti semitic"
Muslims will kill for any criticism (WW-3 we are in it now)
But Christians, OK to bash them
What a world !
[deleted]
maybe if people made fewer sweeping generalizations we'd be more tolerant of other cultures and religions.
not trace
Don't worry, for Christians everywhere I hereby pledge to stop trying to make you into a Christian. Obviously, a pointless exercise.
sharesounds like what some Muslims are trying to do....
no religion is innocent of trying to convert other people to their religion.....
If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mathew 5:38-42
p.s. this tirade makes you look very foolish x
Firstly, Ethnicity and religion are not the same.
It is certainly not particularly clever to use the name of an ethnic group in a derogatory fashion. If members of that group reclaim a pejorative name then that is their business.
There is nothing insulting about calling a Muslim a Muslim. So that is not the same thing at all. However, it is an article of faith for Muslims that the name of a prophet - any prophet, including Jesus - is not used disrespectfully. Jewish people do not use the name of God disrespectfully. Christians also follow this commandment to not take God's name in vain. However, Christians are encouraged to turn the other cheek.
As you say, 'what a world' - a rich and diverse one. If a minority are so intolerant that they cannot accept these differences but instead turn them into stereotypes and justifications for abuse and violence then that is not the fault of any religion or any ethnic group.
Secondly, Kind Hearts and Coronets is about revenge and also about a sociopath who wants to remove the obstacles to his own progress by murdering them. The film is a satire on the class prejudice ridden society of England of a hundred years or so ago but also it is about any arbitrary and judgmental division of society. The line in question may have been deliberate to remind us that these characters, lovable, eccentric buffoons could be nasty and bigoted. The reality behind the story is that the Dukes and Earls of England originally got their titles by being just as sociopathic as Mazzini. In a sense, he is only being true to tradition and true to his breeding. If society has moved on so that the law would seek to prevent such behaviour it had not yet got so far as to prevent similar violence on the grounds of race - as the racist line demonstrates. For this reason, the line should stay. Its shock effect is greater now and that is to the good.
My compliments (five years late, unfortunately) for one of the most astute set of observations That I have ever read on an IMDB arena. I only hope, Z-B, that you still visit this site once in a while to see this response. Would be curious to know if you are a teacher/professor. I make these comments in all sincerity.
shareI concur. Z-B has set the record straight. Kudos.
shareFirstly, Ethnicity and religion are not the same.
It is certainly not particularly clever to use the name of an ethnic group in a derogatory fashion. If members of that group reclaim a pejorative name then that is their business.
There is nothing insulting about calling a Muslim a Muslim. So that is not the same thing at all. However, it is an article of faith for Muslims that the name of a prophet - any prophet, including Jesus - is not used disrespectfully. Jewish people do not use the name of God disrespectfully. Christians also follow this commandment to not take God's name in vain. However, Christians are encouraged to turn the other cheek.
As you say, 'what a world' - a rich and diverse one. If a minority are so intolerant that they cannot accept these differences but instead turn them into stereotypes and justifications for abuse and violence then that is not the fault of any religion or any ethnic group.
Secondly, Kind Hearts and Coronets is about revenge and also about a sociopath who wants to remove the obstacles to his own progress by murdering them. The film is a satire on the class prejudice ridden society of England of a hundred years or so ago but also it is about any arbitrary and judgmental division of society. The line in question may have been deliberate to remind us that these characters, lovable, eccentric buffoons could be nasty and bigoted. The reality behind the story is that the Dukes and Earls of England originally got their titles by being just as sociopathic as Mazzini. In a sense, he is only being true to tradition and true to his breeding. If society has moved on so that the law would seek to prevent such behaviour it had not yet got so far as to prevent similar violence on the grounds of race - as the racist line demonstrates. For this reason, the line should stay. Its shock effect is greater now and that is to the good.
Does this comment have ANY relevance to this thread, other than being a racist rant?
share[deleted]
In a General Election in the 1960's, the Conservative party had the slogan, "If You Want A *beep* For A Neighbour, Vote Labour"
shareThat was the Smethwick bye-election. One Conservative candidate, not the entire party. It was thought to be absolutely disgraceful at the time, but Smethwick was notorious then for its racist element and the slogan probably did help to overturn a large Labour majority (there were other factors, such as the voters' deep resentment that a bye-election was needed anyway, so soon after the general election -- when, by the way, no such slogan was used).
sharehttp://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-racist-election
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh
Bye election.a few months later - MP kicked up to Lords to fight seat for.defeated Gordon-Walker. Lost the seat!
shareI liked the movie, and I was a bit taken aback when the rhyme was used too. Shocking to our modern ears and sad that it could have been deemed so inoffensive as to be used in a film at the time. Thankfully times have changed. I was expecting someone to complain about why it wasn't removed from the DVD- which I would strongly disagree with as it would be censorship and an attempt to rewrite history. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer and the attempts to water-down the language (or outright banning it from libraries) are prime examples.
share
CONTEXTUALISE
LOTS OF DRIED FROG PILLS
Thanks smartass. Oops that's two words.
It's hard to just ignore the word and not wince at it. Have you ever read Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer? Classic works but still the same hard to "contextualise" (hmmm must be a Brit) when the word is used a hundred times throughout.
Thanks smartass. Oops that's two words.
Who's trying to revise and change history- and what smacks of political correctness in shaking one's head at how people thought 50, 100, a thousand years ago? Dangerous and immoral? You have GOT to be kidding!
Remember I said any attempt to remove or soften the words is blatant censorship and trying to revise history- so we're in agreement there. But to be appalled and saddened now that such words were once innocently or purposely used by people in a manner of institutional racism- I see nothing politically correct or dangerous in that.
[deleted]
"Now we use 'Foetus' a derogatory term reflecting age."
I guess I don't understand what you mean in comparing the use of foetus to the use of the other word. Really reaching with that one. As far as I've understood it the word foetus (spelling used primarily in the U.K., Australia and N.Z.) and fetus describe a stage of human development. I've never heard it used in a derogatory fashion- maybe it's a U.K. thing. ??? It certainly doesn't even come close to the history and usage behind the "n" word.
[deleted]
(rolls eyes) Well whatever, I guess you got your little political/religious agenda interjected into this discussion how clever of you. How about back to the specific topic (word) at hand? What it is besides is a rather poor example though- because you're using as an example a word which may or may not mean the same to different people (almost without question actually), whereas I'd gather most would be offended by the "n" word.
I'll even go further and say people do learn or else the use of the "n" word wouldn't create the controversy that it does now.
[deleted]
I don't believe in hijacking a thread by pushing one's agenda, and especially when it has nothing to do with the racist language used in Kind Hearts and Coronets. Which of course was the direct main subject by the first poster. You commented earlier "We don't learn do we? Dehumanised people were referred to by a derogatory term reflecting skin tone." Fine, right to the point of the topic. But what I take issue with is your rather odd comparison/analogy of abortion with it in the comments that followed. I could only judge them as an attempt to insert your feelings on abortion into the topic.
I don't recall any instance in the film where abortion, right to life, "foetus" or anything remotely close to that was mentioned, hinted at or implied. So it's absurd and presumptuous of you to try to tie-in your statements about abortion with this film- I saw that immediately for what it was. Makes as much sense as bringing it up in a Star Wars or Disney film thread.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Good luck alan-morton, he's on his little crusade whilst hijacking the thread with a word that most people couldn't faintly see as an analogy to the use of the "n" word in KH&C. Absolutely none. No matter how hard he tries. It's a faaaaar stretch and one he is determined to pursue in his blatant attempt to moralize about his pet issue it seems. At least he could take his views on abortion (pro or con) to a thread where it makes sense to engage in serious discussion about it! Such as when abortion or reproductive rights are brought up, there's a thought. Got a suggestion, maybe he's been to this thread: Vera Drake.
share[deleted]
I think you are incorrect on this one. I think it is perfectly on topic - how words have become politicized in one way or another.
In KH&C we are shocked when we hear the N word because the word has become a political expression of racist oppression. It had no such connotation back then, certainly not in Britain.
The use of Fetus is also a word used for a political purpose. I won't get into abortion and I don't think the previous poster wanted to either, but it was a perfectly germane post.
If your post was directed to me, I think the original poster said he was shocked or surprised by the use of that rhyme- he even acknowledged he was aware the movie was made in 1949. He/she didn't mention anything about how the word has been politicized-others brought that up- just that it was a bit shocking to hear the use of it NOW. I had the same reaction. Of course many of us can put it into context. I think some are making way more out of the first poster's and my reaction to the use of that rhyme than was intended.
As far as the word becoming a political expression of racist oppression, and not having that connotation then- I can see it at least as a putdown and impolite thing to say about a black person. I think it has long before 1949 been viewed as a derogatory word to describe blacks, just as much as all the other names used for Chinese, Hispanics, etc. At least in the USA. Not in non-redneck country anyway! The U.K. hadn't had to deal with a diverse non-white population yet, and I allow that attitudes about blacks were different then than in the USA. Like I said earlier I imagine that rhyme might have raised more eyebrows in the USA than in the U.K.
Again, what the first poster said seemed to me to be a simple, reasonable commentary on his/her reaction to seeing the film and hearing that rhyme. Seems like most of us agree it was kinda tough to hear that word.
I find it odd, considering your passionate opposition and righteous indignation towards the use of racialist slurs, that you (perhaps unintentionally?) referred to certain citizens of the states who use racialist slurs against others as 'red-necks'...wouldn't the use of the term 'red-necks' to categorise these offenders as such be considered in itself a racialist slur on your part?
shareBeen watching a little too much Ali G, I see.
The Adventures of The Man With No Penis: http://tinyurl.com/8ezrkh
Makes as much sense as bringing it up in a Star Wars or Disney film thread.
"Whereas I`d gather most would be offended by the "n" word".
It`s normal to be offended when called a "nig-er". Being offended by merely hearing the word mentioned is just PC nonsense (and one suspects most really aren`t offended, anyway - it`s just a convenient way to let other people know what righteous little personages they are).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I've seen this film many times now and every damn time it's still shocking and upsetting to hear that word in it. It's a big reminder just how casual and ingrained racism was at the time (not that there isn't a lot of casual and ingrained racism now, but things have changed in certain ways) that the word was thrown around so easily and consider a "normal," no-big-deal thing.
It puts an unfortunate black mark on a great film.
Matthew
"Foetus" is, indeed, the exact correct word for it. It ain't a "child" till it's born and living on its own.
shareI believe it was Lord Denning, who summing up a judgement in the 1950s said; 'we cannot view a 1948 incident through 1950s spectacles'. Perhaps we could take that a step further and try to view a 1949 film in its correct context. I cannot believe that words/labels were used with intentional offence in film.
sharefetus describe a stage of human development. I've never heard it used in a derogatory fashion- maybe it's a U.K. thing. ??? It certainly doesn't even come close to the history and usage behind the "n" word.
=================
Pro-abortion propagandists use the word "foetus" all the time because it sounds ugly and alien. If they used the word "baby" it would arouse to many connotations.
Hey back to the topic word at hand, what do you know! I think it's in a different context when the word was used by the two white characters in KH&C in 1949. In Storytelling it was used by a black character while having sex with a white woman and can be seen as a commentary on the whole black male/white woman sexual Mandingo concept. It's meant to provoke shock and introspection about it. When used in KH&C it was just using a well-established racist saying in a seemingly unblinking way- just matter of factly. I wouldn't doubt that even at that time it would have raised a few eyebrows. I can't speak for the U.K. but at least in the USA. Gone with the Wind made in 1939 never used the word- they knew it was polarizing and hurtful to many at the time.
If you have to ask the question why is it ok to be used by black but not white then you need to think about it more deeply. The word wouldn't have had the same impact if it hadn't been said first by the black character. This was an obvious and deliberate choice by the director and screenwriter. If the white woman had said it first them's opening up a big can of worms. Black comics and blacks amongst themselves use the word freely and in an entirely different context than the white characters did in KH&C. It's been widely said that they "own" the word and have earned the right as it were to turn it around and use it as they see fit. This of course isn't universally agreed on even in the black community.
The point isn't so much that the word should be omitted from novels, history books or not used anymore (though some would want it that way) but that it is still a powerful, shocking, and hateful word and should be used with some thought behind it first.
>Thanks smartass. Oops that's two words.
>Whether you are calling me a donkey or a posterior (Americans have never learned to spell arse) it is still three words.
"Ass" is in fact the correct spelling. Most Englishmen, (but not most English speakers), pronounce it as "arse", just as they pronounce "glass" as "glarse", "class" as "clarse" - and so on. They don't insist on spelling any of those other words the way they pronounce them, so clearly they shouldn't spell "ass" that way either.
Apologies for being an anorak but:
The r was an original part of the word, for centuries before the English language found its way to North America. Old English "aers", Middle English "ers". For instance, Chaucer spells it "ers" in the Canterbury Tales (1380s / 1390s).
What seems to have happened, though, is that it and the word "ass" got closer together in pronunciation -- there's quite a few jokes in 16th and 17th century English that depend on a similarity of the sound. This doesn't necessarily mean that the two words were pronounced exactly the same way, or that they have the modern pronunciation, only that "ers" and "ass" sounded more or less the same.
North American English has inherited this similarity in pronunciation, while standard English has recovered its arse.
America and Britain- two countries separated by a common language. No I didn't coin that one sorry.
So alan-morton is apologizing for being what Americans would classify as a raincoat? What we have here is a failure to communicate. No didn't come up with that one either sorry.
I had to look the expression up and lo and behold it's a U.K. slang for a nerd. I'm afraid any thread about a U.K. film on IMDb will have a mix of English speakers who may need an interpreter.
The bottom (no pun intended) line with ass/arse seems to me to be this: look up ass in a dictionary or encyclopedia (USA spelling) and if there's a picture next to it most would be of a donkey/mule. Maybe in the U.K. next to arse would be a donkey/mule, but I rather doubt it. Would arse even show up in a U.K. dictionary? At this point I don't even care... but I do appreciate the little sidelight educational tidbits by alan-morton and iuantral...er...whatshisname.
Of course the way I meant it when I used the term smartass was "oh, a wise guy, very funny." But donkey as he took it worked fine as well.
"Ass" is in fact the correct spelling. Most Englishmen, (but not most English speakers), pronounce it as "arse", just as they pronounce "glass" as "glarse", "class" as "clarse" - and so on. They don't insist on spelling any of those other words the way they pronounce them, so clearly they shouldn't spell "ass" that way either.
[deleted]
i really don't understand what all the fuss is about, it's a film ffs, it was made in 1949, it was a verse which was widely used until people started getting chips on their shoulders about offensive name calling.
Geez, hasn't anyone heard the saying 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me'?
will all those people that take offence to being name called or offended by words move on and get a life, please.
After all another saying, 'friendship is not words, but meaning'
The n****r word was not meant to offend, but obviously some shoulders need a little ketchup.
If you're not mature enough for criticism, you're too immature for praise!
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me'? "
I don't know who ever coined that phrase but I for one who like to take it and shove back down their throat. Because that person does not have a clue what they are taking about.
"will all those people that take offence to being name called or offended by words move on and get a life, please"
So no one has ever said a word or a comment that has offended you??? And what does being offended by words have to do with getting a life?
"Because that person does not have a clue what they are taking about."
lol and you do? at least 'my' statement gives a reason and is an opinion.
"So no one has ever said a word or a comment that has offended you?"
Yes, but hasn't bothered me to the extent to what this whole thread is about. Obviously by your comment you are often offended and find it hard to deal with.
"And what does being offended by words have to do with getting a life?"
I accept that other people have an opinion and respect them for it, but why try and change something that happened years ago and was accepted then?
If you're not mature enough for criticism, you're too immature for praise!
"lol and you do? at least 'my' statement gives a reason and is an opinion."
What reason? And what exactly is your opinion?
"Yes, but hasn't bothered me to the extent to what this whole thread is about."
I don't need you to tell me what this thread is about. I started this thread I know exactly what it is about. And if you say that no one has offended you by words. Then I think you are being less than honest.
'Obviously by your comment you are often offended and find it hard to deal with. "
That is clearly an ignorant statement. Because you don't know anything about me to make that assumption. You only think you do.
"but why try and change something that happened years ago and was accepted then?"
No one is trying to change something that happened years ago. And who was it that accepted those words then? I can assure you it was not the people on the receiving end of that word, no matter how long ago. You may have accepted it. I'm interested in changing the here and now. And if you don't like change maybe its time you got a life. Because life is all about change.
Stick and stones can break your bones but words cause permanent damage.
"What reason? And what exactly is your opinion?"
lol read my post again [rollseyes]
"And if you say that no one has offended you by words. Then I think you are being less than honest."
Maybe you think wrong. see below quote.
"you don't know anything about me to make that assumption. You only think you do."
"I'm interested in changing the here and now."
then change the here and now, not a film that was made years ago.
I have a life, thank you, I repeat your words for the second time.
"you don't know anything about me to make that assumption."
"Stick and stones can break your bones but words cause permanent damage."
Oh dear, trying to change an old saying [rollseyes]
The old saying is true, (Sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will never hurt me) yours is a lie.
It depends on how strong a person you are to let words cause damage, you must be weak. ;o)
If you're not mature enough for criticism, you're too immature for praise!
"lol read my post again [rollseyes]"
I've read your post and still it doesn't make any sense.
"Maybe you think wrong. see below quote"
That quote was designed for people (maybe like you?) to continue to insult/hurt other people under the pretext that they think it is O.K to do so.
"I have a life, thank you, I repeat your words for the second time. "
Yes but the problem is that you seem to assume that other people don't have a life. (Read your earlier comments in your earlier thread).
"The old saying is true"
Wrong again. The old saying is a lie, made up by an ignoramus who didn't have a clue what he was talking about.
"It depends on how strong a person you are to let words cause damage, you must be weak. ;o)"
Everybody has been hurt by words somewhere along the line : even you. The problem is too many people deny that words hurts them. So you must still be in denial without the courage to face up to the fact that words can and do hurt.: which makes you the weak one.
"Wrong again. The old saying is a lie, made up by an ignoramus who didn't have a clue what he was talking about. "
and you knew this 'ignoramus' did you? lol
"Everybody has been hurt by words somewhere along the line : even you. "
""you don't know anything about me to make that assumption. You only think you do." "
I believe in truth, the truth doesn't hurt me, it's peoples actions that can be hurtful. People are entitled to their own opinions (isn't that what this message board is about?) and my opinion is that words don't hurt me, as long as they are the truth.
If people want to be ruled by words hurting them, that is their look out, something said in innocence should not be taken as hurtful or insulting.
It's the people with chips that think they have a right to change traditions just because it's an 'insulting' word that bugs me.
The film was made long before you were born or even thought of, get over it and don't watch the film again, if you're that bothered.
Maybe I should feel offended because they have 'whiteboards' in the office, lol
If you're not mature enough for criticism, you're too immature for praise!
"and you knew this 'ignoramus' did you? lol "
I don't have to know the ignoramus. Whoever first coined that phrase is an ignoramus. An ignoramus of the highest order.
"I believe in truth, the truth doesn't hurt me,"
I don't believe you for one second. Everybody gets hurt by home truths somewhere along the line.
'it's peoples actions that can be hurtful"
Where do peoples actions first begin if not by a thought first, then words and then action? It is the words that are just as hurtful as the action.
"It's the people with chips that think they have a right to change traditions..."
Now you are showing your supreme ignorance. You do not have to have a chip on your shoulder to want to change tradition.
If you removed the almighty chip from your own shoulder you would probably see that.
"something said in innocence should not be taken as hurtful or insulting..."
I'm not convinced that it was said in innocence : I think it was deliberately said in a derogratory, insulting manner.
"The film was made long before you were born or even thought of, get over it "
I've gotten over the film a long time ago. What that film needed was a warning that it contains offensive language. Then I would not have bothered to view it or I would have expected what was to come.
"Maybe I should feel offended because they have 'whiteboards' in the office, lol "
Now I find this last statement of yours very interesting.
To begin with, it just shows the type of ignoramus you really are. Examine yourself : what motivated you to write that?
Unfortunately, the n word is often followed by sticks and stones.
share[deleted]