Freaks and Geeks

[sistermagpie]

Lee Storm
> OOOOOOOOPPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> This was supposed to be a private message to susan....my apologies.
> 
> But, since it ended up here, I will say to Kemper that you are 
welcome to
> your opinion, friend.  I know you're a decent person.  But I truly 
can't see
> how a show which is supposed to be "morally enriching" can have 
language
> which is, IMO, immoral.

Magpie:
Gee, I can. Easily. I completely agree that there's certain language 
that's appropriate around children, and that children should be spoken 
to respectfully and learn that's the way to speak to others. Many 
children today would still be considered very polite. I'm frankly 
confused at the idea of the word "motherfucker" or "shit" appearing in 
a network TV show, since that word isn't allowed on network TV (well, 
shit is in certain contexts but only rarely). Are we sure the store 
clerk wasn't just wrong about what was playing? Because the whole 
point of "it was on (network) TV" is that it can't contain that kind 
of language. Stupid yes--motherfucker, no.

However, I completely disagree that if a movie happens to contain bad 
language, probably because that kind of language is what a certain 
character would use, or because it's the language the writer thinks is 
most appropriate for the story, then the story can't be morally 
enriching or just enriching because it's good art. Why shouldn't it 
be? There were many words I never heard in my house growing up, and 
still wouldn't use in many situations, but as an adult I don't 
consider a story worthless just because it contains that kind of 
language. Great writing can integrate bad language--sometimes the bad 
word is part of what makes a line just right or really funny.

Ironically, I was watching a Law & Order the other night and found 
myself giggling because a character said some expression--I can't 
remember what it was--but it substituted "freakin'" for "fuckin'" in 
ways just never would have been in real life. It took me out of the 
show for a second because the language just sounded unnatural. 

But then, network TV for years now has been embracing their 
limitations and coming up with fun meta substitutions. Sometimes they 
just bleep things, and as an audience member it reads as whatever word 
it would be without pulling me out of the story because I know I'm 
watching network TV. That said, I also remember Schindler's List being 
on network TV and they must have gotten special permission to run it 
as it was made because it had swears in it. I think many people 
consider Schindler's List to be morally enriching despite it including 
immoral things.

And while I'm rambling, it's kind of interesting that F&G is a Judd 
Apatow production, because I was recently listening to the commentary 
track on Superbad. Judd brought his 9 year old daughter to the 
commentary and so ordered all the people there to keep their comments 
clean. He also seemed to be covering his daughter's eyes and ears when 
anything inappropriate on screen--which was a lot! Anyway, Jonah Hill 
slipped up and swore, and was scolded, and it ended up in rather a big 
fight (if it wasn't staged). Basically, Hill told him that he had come 
here to do a commentary for a raunchy comedy that was inappropriate 
for children, and their commentary was going to reflect that, and why 
on earth did he decide to bring his daughter? Apatow shot back that 
Hill needed to figure out a different way of being funny and learn not 
to swear when it wasn't appropriate. Hill's position was that he could 
do that, but that the commentary of this movie was obviously not a 
place where it wasn't appropriate.

Apatow ended up just leaving, and I have to say I was relieved. 
Although of course I do think adults need to be able to control 
themselves and wouldn't have trouble doing it myself, and I didn't 
particularly need swearing in the commentary, I did think it was 
completely out of line and unfair to me as a consumer for this guy to 
bring his daughter to a movie she wasn't old enough to see and then 
try to direct the commentary towards 9-year-olds. Even if nobody used 
bad language, the commentary was about inappropriate things anyway, 
because that's what was going on in the movie. I can't help but think 
Apatow would have been telling them to be quiet over and over and it 
was just nerve-wracking. It's an R-rated movie, I accepted that when I 
rented it, stop making me nervous about what your daughter is or isn't 
seeing. 

Susan:
And I would have had NO problem had the girl said "You are wrong. You
are evil. You are despicable. You have hurt me, and abused me."

Magpie:
I would have had a huge problem with that. My problem would have been 
that that was completely unnatural language for the character. Drama 
isn't always going to be about teaching people to respond 
energetically and clearly. Sometimes it's going to just show 
inarticulate rage or reflect the certain aspects of life. (And a child 
growing up in an abusive home would of course have probably learned 
name-calling at the knee of the person they're angry at.) The thing 
about all those old clean movies is that allowing stronger language 
came along with allowing all sorts of other things that were 
considered morally objectionable about life according to some people.

Susan:
So continue on with the flames....I'm getting toasty warm.

Magpie:
I think this conversation definitely still shows people responding 
clearly and energetically rather than resorting to name-calling. I 
haven't seen any flaming.

-m