Watching some episodes of Are You Being Served I've noticed that there were some dialogue cuts. Now I have a feeling that they were done so because of modern sensitivities and I respect that but may spoil viewing for some. What does everyone think?
(NB this is a serious question so no offensive posts
I've got to be honest - making cuts for modern sensitivities doesn't sit well with me. I don't think we should whitewash history - we should see it for what it was and learn from it.
I completely understand that broadcasters probably don't want to showcase what can be quite offensive material these days. But I think they should be available, unedited, so that everyone can choose to watch them if they so wish. That's not to say they should necessarily be broadcast on TV anymore, but I do think that unedited versions should be on DVD and streaming services where there is an element of choice about watching something.
I think that's what's already done in a lot of cases, itsrobert. Cuts are made for TV broadcasts where offensive language would be the most shocking when watching casually, but left intact on DVD release where there will be context and warning both on the packaging and possibly before the content itself.
One thing I've noticed that the BBFC are especially strict on when re-releasing old films for TV or DVD/BD release is animal cruelty - think of horses falling whilst racing, for instance. These scenes were acceptable when the film was released but are now considered by the BBFC unacceptable to be shown on any release. Most of the time it is only a few seconds of footage from a few scenes, so it is not usually a problem, and I wouldn't want to see it anyway.
I think I'm quite comfortable for cuts to be made if the content in question is being sold as entertainment, as long as the original material is preserved for historical purposes.
There are cuts and then there are cuts. When the BBC repeated The Germans episode of Fawlty Towers a few years ago, they went so far as to chop out language used by the Major when he using what would now be seen as very racist language (ie the "all cricketers are n****s. No no no I said, n*****s are the West Indians. These people are w***" speil), but doing this sort of lost the concept that the Major is an old fashioned racist character. Who also hates Germans.
Of course when this goes out on Gold now it remains intact but carries a warning about "outdated language" and probably doesn't appear before 9pm.
And of course, in the case of The Major character, that was exactly the point the John Cleese was making. The Major lived in a different era, and brings those views and language/turn of phrase along with him. Time has moved on, The Major is (was) still entrenched in post-war Torquay.
Basil Fawlty if you notice, doesn't pass comment, gives an occasional look of distain, and moves quickly on - a point that gets totally lost, as today's audiences would'nt notice as they reach for their phones, fire up Twitter, and call for the BBC to be burned down.
And of course, in the case of The Major character, that was exactly the point the John Cleese was making. The Major lived in a different era, and brings those views and language/turn of phrase along with him. Time has moved on, The Major is (was) still entrenched in post-war Torquay.
Basil Fawlty if you notice, doesn't pass comment, gives an occasional look of distain, and moves quickly on - a point that gets totally lost, as today's audiences would'nt notice as they reach for their phones, fire up Twitter, and call for the BBC to be burned down.
To Death Us Do Part extended that idea over 30 minutes. It was supposed to be a satirical demolition of racism and sexism, the viewers and possibly some of the BBC manangment didn't 'get that' at all, and the whole thing backfired (for several series and years!)
If they showed it today, Twitter would probably get so hot it would vapourise. Perhaps it's worth a try just for that alone
Last edited by Markymark on 28 December 2019 9:29am
A good example of "cuts" is the old cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s, Tom & Jerry, Looney Tunes and friends. While these cartoons and others air on Boomerang or wherever, broadcasters have attempted to make them (particularly Tom & Jerry) more child friendly by removing the adult themes - initially racism, smoking and the remaining scenes of blackface.
But of course the problem with sanitising this is that Tom & Jerry and Looney Tunes are not (and never had been) specifically aimed at children in the first place, they were made for cinema viewing prior to the main film in the 1940s and the 1950s - films that were not "adult" as we know it now, but mainstream, adult contemporary viewing (children had their own matinees and "Saturday morning at the pictures" slots). If you look at Tom & Jerry, which is one of the most violent cartoon series in history, its a surprise it appeared on TV at all in that form. Yes segments of it were racist, T&J wasn't unique in this and there are no end of cartoons that feature it.
Of course it leads to disclaimers on the DVDs that it was wrong at the time to use those stereotypes and it's wrong now, but to edit them is the same as claiming the prejudices never existed. But on the positive side the cartoons are unedited on DVD (Apart from I think its three episodes of Tom & Jerry that didn't make it).
Til
Death Us Do Part ... was supposed to be a satirical demolition of racism and sexism, the viewers and possibly some of the BBC manangment didn't 'get that' at all, and the whole thing backfired (for several series and years!)
If they showed it today, Twitter would probably get so hot it would vapourise. Perhaps it's worth a try just for that alone
And if the "snowflakes" vapourise along with it, all the better.
I, for example, am a homosexual man who is
not
readily offended by the likes of "Mr Humphries" style portrayals. An ability to comprehend things like context and era, as well a being able to have a sense of humour about oneself, are important. I consider those who are unable/unwilling to do so, to be poor excuses for lifeforms.
I've got to be honest - making cuts for modern sensitivities doesn't sit well with me. I don't think we should whitewash history - we should see it for what it was and learn from it.
I completely understand that broadcasters probably don't want to showcase what can be quite offensive material these days. But I think they should be available, unedited, so that everyone can choose to watch them if they so wish. That's not to say they should necessarily be broadcast on TV anymore, but I do think that unedited versions should be on DVD and streaming services where there is an element of choice about watching something.
It worries me when we start to edit history.
I've also seen cuts to Last Of The Summer Wine. One featured Compo giving someone a two fingered salute. Another features an exchange between Foggy and a minor character. I will quote the lines as far as memory will recall so apologies for any offence.
FOGGY. "You'll have to excuse Digby, he's besides himself"
ORMROYD" Oh great. I'm going to get gang-banged"
Now anyone who has seen the episode "Catching Digby's Donkey" (probably everyone on the thread) will know the background to the exchange so will understand the context. The episode was shown in the mid 1980's well before the truly horrific abuse scandals and being gang-banged became (or revealed as) a term of assault.
Yet early episodes of LOTSW also contained material that could now be considered offensive but wasn't in 1973/4 yet are still broadcast in full in 2019. Double standards or simply ignorance?
To Death Us Do Part extended that idea over 30 minutes. It was supposed to be a satirical demolition of racism and sexism, the viewers and possibly some of the BBC manangment didn't 'get that' at all, and the whole thing backfired (for several series and years!)
Yes. Unfortunately Till Death Us Do Part inadvertently gave a stronger voice to racists and sexists, with Alf becoming their hero.
Gavin & Stacey is currently experiencing a backlash from certain parts of the LGBTQ community due to their use of the F word on Christmas Day.
I, for example, am a homosexual man who is
not
readily offended by the likes of "Mr Humphries" style portrayals. An ability to comprehend things like context and era, as well a being able to have a sense of humour about oneself, are important. I consider those who are unable/unwilling to do so, to be poor excuses for lifeforms.
The problem with that type of portrayal is that it was often the only type that the media would allow on screen. I can fully understand how that would make it very difficult for a young gay man growing up in the 1970s.