to object to racist/offensive language in a play

[TeenyTinyTorya]

I went to see an amateur production of "Arsenic and Old Lace" the other night, and objected to some of the language used. The play is originally from the 1940s, and the script had not been updated.

At one point, a character referred to the Japanese army as "yellow devils", and at another point, an (unseen) character was described as a "chink".

I felt that neither term was necessary to the story, and both could have been changed or eliminated altogether to avoid offence, without affecting the play. I mentioned it to someone I know who was in the play, and they said that after a lot of discussion, a conscious decision had been made to keep the terms in the script. The reason for this was that people would have used these terms at the time the play was set.

AIBU to think that they should have just taken the terms out altogether, as they were not integral to the story?

anyone?

It's a silly path to get on, to 'edit' art in light of current mores. You have to accept it in the light of the times it was written in. You can't pick and choose which bits are ok. Most people are intelligent enough to realise that something is a period piece and to see it in that spirit. Good on the people producing it for having the courage of their convictions.

what stephanie said.

Although, a friend of mine was in Me and My Girl at the Palladium. It features the song The Sun Has Got His Hat On. Original version includes the 'N' word. They changed the line to: 'He's been roasting peanuts out in Timbuctoo.' Thought that was a very neat substitution.

I'm totally against the whole hysterical PC culture that we have now. I just wondered if it would offend an audience, some of which may have been Chinese or Japanese themselves.

After all, companies can no longer produce musicals like "Showboat" by using white actors wearing make-up, so some censorship of the original production has to take place.

If the terms used had been integral to the storyline, for example a play about racist attitudes which used the "n" word - then I could understand it. As they were completely throwaway, I didn't understand the need to keep them in.

I personally would agree with the op.

If the language did not add to the play, then why keep it in and risk alienating potential audience.

Society has moved on, perhaps art should follow that lead.

the point is that society has moved on, yes, therefore current art will reflect that. There's no need for retrospective editing IMO. It's just such a slippery slope. It leaves art open to being censored, basically, and it's right that we are super careful about that.

Yes, some stuff written in the past would contain stuff that could be deeply offensive; I guess this stuff will go by the way-side and basically not be produced on stage if it's going to be impossible for us to hear now, and rightly so in my view. But that's not the same as changing it to suit.

I think it would not have been written the same way nowadays, but this is "existing art". There was a french comedy film in the 1970 called "Les aventures de Rabi Jacob" in which a middle class french man has to hide in the Jewish community after his life is menaced by a muslim group trying to do a "puch" in their own country. Recently a musical has been adapted from that movie and some people complained that the Jewish people were depicted in a too caricatural way. it was dismissed as in the days it has originaly been written it was not offensive. Same could be said about Tintin. I think it would be a bit wrong to change original writtings to suit our times as it would erase things rather that makin us learn from it and realise that things have changed a bit. If it is a problem for you be more selective about the plays you go and watch.

Thing is, when people have tried to edit literature/art/music to suit changing tastes, it's often been horrible. Think of Bowdler hacking apart Shakespeare.

but it's not like arsenic and old lace is that great a play, though? i'd have thought that an amateur company should've changed it tbh, although in general i'd be anti.

Huckleberry Finn is a story I remember thoroughly enjoying as a child.
I don't recall the use of 'n*gger' etc way back then but recently when I decided to read it to my ds at bedtime I was shocked and forced to give in as the use of the word and other very difficult sentiments meant I just couldn't keep up with the explanations and alternatives (least not at that time of night).

I just don't want that kind of language to be part of his acceptable vocabulary so should I just avoid classics like HBF or could they be reworded to avoid such severe language? Would it detract from the story or could it open up some wonderful writing in an appropriate way?

I understand the authenticity argument but should racist language be valued and preserved as a valuable legacy of past times?

My dh is reading HF to our children (8 and 9) as it was written. I hate abridged or altered stories. If they are highly inappropriate then they shouldn't be read at all except as reference, otherwise the abusive language is itself part of the story. Especially for something like Huck Fin, which is about racism. dh does say it is hard to read though (mostly because of the accent, but also the story). In the 40's there was a lot of racism, and that was a part of life. Perhaps it is useful to occasionally be shocked, because it is a reminder of what bad attitudes society had (and probably still has).

My ds' father (I was full of ideals when young and thought I could enlighten him) refers to black people as 'coons' and 'wooden spoons' and all slightly swarthy-looking individuals (asians and eastern europeans alike) are 'pakis' and he is certainly not alone in that ignorance.
Therefore I feel it necessary to counter my 9 year olds references but the language and attitudes embedded in the Huckleberry Finn writing were beyond my ability whilst maintaining attention and cohesion in the story, which is a great shame.

Yes, avoiding it is probably my only option but I feel under other circumstances the inappropriate language and sentiments should be removed where possible.
In a play such as in the op, it is certainly possible.

YABU. I'm completely against altering plays and novels in any way,regardless of merit, such censorship may even lead to banning of books.

Its ourresponsibility to deal with such words either by skipping them, substituting them or saying them and explaining why such words are offensive and no longer used.

Gone With The Wind would be about 10 pages long if all the terms that were considered offensive were removed.

Skipping and substituting is censorship whether done personally or publically and it is not always possible without ruining the material.

I don't agree with banning books or plays and I think there is probably a fine line but I do believe that banning incitement to racial hatred is appropriate and if altering phrases in a play means that book or play becomes acceptable for mainstream consumption then that is acceptable and appropriate to my mind.

Sorry for banging on about it, I just don't think it is as clear cut as YABU or YANBU.

Ho hum.

Skipping and substituting is censoring it yes, but only for you and your child, changing the text or script alters it for everyone who watches or reads it, whether they cared to have it altered or not.

And do we remove only racist terms? sexist terms? Whose idea of morality do we use, people are offended by various things, should we also remove any references to gay relationships in books because it makes some people uncomfortable?

This says it better than I can.

censorship

Great essay falcon. Thanks

Actually, I would have to disagree that these terms are 'not integral to the story'. These terms put the story into its historical context, which is just as important as the plot, IMHO.

But I am 100% against censorship of any kind.

ThePregnantHedgeWitch I couldn't have put it any better, you summed it all up.

Very well said, HW!!

Doesn't that happen though, HW? As far as I was aware, Enid Blyton has been censored for the modern generation. Golliwogs aren't in any children's story nowadays.

I am actually against too much censorship and political correctness, but I wondered where you draw the line.

My point was that the terms didn't add anything to the story. It wasn't about attitudes to Japanese people during the war, or anything like that. For those who don't know the play, it's a dark comedy about two old ladies who poison lonely old gentlemen and bury them in their cellar. The historical context was clearly shown by everything else that happened on stage and in the story, it didn't need the terms used.

I would never dream of editing things like "The Colour Purple", or "Othello", because racism is integral to those stories. I think it's important that things like this are NOT censored, becuase they show and challenge racist attitudes, and don't avoid the fact that these beliefs existed. But when it's just a throwaway line, included only because of the attitudes at the time of writing, and adding nothing to the character or story, why keep it in?

YANBU to find it unacceptable, but YABU to want to change it. It's good in some ways that it is still in the play as it reminds people how much we have moved on and is a strong indicator of the racist opinions of the time.

Though if the play were for children i would object. For example I don't think that Dr Dolittle uses the word nigger in the film, though it practically used as a term of enderment when I read my old books to DSS a few years ago. I used to skip it, though when he read it to himself he was old enough to have a good discussion with about racism and how we have changed (some of us anyway).

yabu
where does it stop?
I am very anti disablist terms, but have to accept that at one time words like retard ect were acceptible. so when I am watching an old play/film or something set in a bygone age, I have to turn my internal pc monitor off,