Profanity

[Cearbhall]

And again, I doubt the filmmaker is trying to convey that the protagonist is an unimaginative dolt. But it does seem to work for a lot of people here. Still, I don't get why it works for you. If you think profanity is, "one of the most ridiculous and pointless cultural constructions," how is it conveying anything to you? If that is truly your view of profanity, wouldn't you like to see that point brought out in films where characters swear?

No no, you misunderstand. The idea that certain words are inherently profane is what I am calling ridiculous. Not the words themselves. Perhaps it's because I don't believe in curses.

 

[Hieronymus]

sorry...

 

[Resha Caner]

Would you delete the vast quantities of profanity - often creative, sometimes amusing and regularly vulgar - from the works of Shakespeare? Would you describe him as 'lacking in creativity'? Would you do the same for Wilde, Hemingway or Twain?

Throwing out names you think are above reproach isn't going to help your argument. I'm not a fan of Wilde. I admire both Shakespeare and Twain (among other writers) but even they had their bad days. The Tempest, for example, is pretty weak.

And you seem to completely miss the point as well as conflating cursing and profanity. Even the Bible contains curses, so it's not as if I'm proposing that everything negative should be struck from film. Stories need conflict to make them interesting, but repeated use of juvenile language does not heighten the conflict or make a story interesting.

It's funny you mention Shakespeare and profanity, as he is actually the perfect example of employing an amazing variety of creative ways to curse. Maybe you should read this link: https://mymarginalia.wordpress.com/2011/01/24/william-shakespeare-and-the-gentle-art-of-cursing/

It shouldn't bother you given your position, but I'll warn others that it's not an essay of gentle words. And note the quotes that, "Johnson’s book is designed to extol the virtues of English’s most taboo four-letter words, most of which Shakespeare merely alluded to, but did not himself employ," and "While refraining from vulgarities, Shakespeare still manages to be quite crude through the cunning use of euphemism."

 

[Cearbhall]

Throwing out names you think are above reproach isn't going to help your argument. I'm not a fan of Wilde. I admire both Shakespeare and Twain (among other writers) but even they had their bad days. The Tempest, for example, is pretty weak.

It would help his argument if you didn't think you could improve their works. It seems you do, though.

And you seem to completely miss the point as well as conflating cursing and profanity.

Are they mutually exclusive?

Stories need conflict to make them interesting, but repeated use of juvenile language does not heighten the conflict or make a story interesting.

What's juvenile about it? I think it's juvenile to act like certain words ruin a story and should never be heard.

It doesn't improve the quality of the dialogue on its own, in the sense that it could make up for poor writing, but it's as useful a linguistic tool as any other.

 

[Resha Caner]

No no, you misunderstand. The idea that certain words are inherently profane is what I am calling ridiculous. Not the words themselves. Perhaps it's because I don't believe in curses.

I don't know that any word is inherently anything. But to say the profane doesn't exist would be an odd view. Still, that's not my point. In my own writing I used to have a problem with "that". I used the word much too often, and it became a burden to my writing.

So, I'll mention another pet peeve of mine - all the films that use the line, "follow your heart" (gag).

Whether or not you believe in profanity, the word is meant to convey a profane concept. I still don't get why you're defending the use of words you find empty. What exactly are these characters conveying to you by frequently using a word you think is empty?

 

[Oafman]

It's funny you mention Shakespeare and profanity, as he is actually the perfect example of employing an amazing variety of creative ways to curse.

It looks like we're more or less in agreement then, if you admit there is value from well used profanity, but misuse or overuse (and especially repetitive use) is unwelcome.

But that's more nuanced, and doesn't really tally with what you expressed in the OP, or at least, not how I understood it.

And also, to address your specific point about overuse in film, they are usually attempting to represent real or realistic situations (with varying degrees of success!), and so should just be using words and expressions in common parlance. So your criticism ought really to be aimed at society rather than at filmmakers. If everyday people were routinely using language that would make a docker blush, yet films never contained swearing, there would be quite a disconnect.

 

[Resha Caner]

It would help his argument if you didn't think you could improve their works. It seems you do, though.

The conclusions to which people make their flying leaps ... In no way do I think I could write better than Shakespeare. Does that mean I have no right to an opinion - that I am to worship every word he wrote? I am not the only one who thinks The Tempest is not a very good play: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tempest

Quote, "The Tempest became criticised as one of Shakespeare's worst plays."

 

[Oafman]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tempest

I'm a big fan of uncyclopaedia, but is is satire

 

[Resha Caner]

It looks like we're more or less in agreement then, if you admit there is value from well used profanity, but misuse or overuse (and especially repetitive use) is unwelcome.

I can think of a few rare (very few) situations where I thought profanity was cleverly used. One that comes to mind is when George McFly used a profanity in an attempt to appear tough with Biff in Back to the Future. Another would be a similar situation in Star Trek IV, when Spock was trying to understand the purpose of cursing.

And also, to address your specific point about overuse in film, they are usually attempting to represent real or realistic situations (with varying degrees of success!), and so should just be using words and expressions in common parlance. So your criticism ought really to be aimed at society rather than at filmmakers. If everyday people were routinely using language that would make a docker blush, yet films never contained swearing, there would be quite a disconnect.

But think about this. If the purpose of a profanity is to express a profane concept, why is there surprise or indignation when people take offense at the use of such words? And if people don't take offense at such words, how can it be argued those words are effective? I just don't get it.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm a big fan of uncyclopaedia, but is is satire

Are you saying The Tempest is not criticized as one of Shakespeare's worst? Or are you asking for a more credible source? I'm sure I could find one.

 

[Oafman]

But think about this. If the purpose of a profanity is to express a profane concept, why is there surprise or indignation when people take offense at the use of such words? And if people don't take offense at such words, how can it be argued those words are effective? I just don't get it.

The impact these words have only exists if some people get offended by them. Otherwise they're just like every other word. I might have a little moan about people who do get offended by swear words, but I do recognise that without that offence, we'd have no swear words, and our language would be worse off for it.

 

[Oafman]

Are you saying The Tempest is not criticized as one of Shakespeare's worst? Or are you asking for a more credible source? I'm sure I could find one.

Neither. I just thought you were using that site as a serious source, when actually they just make up stuff for giggles.

 

[Resha Caner]

Neither. I just thought you were using that site as a serious source, when actually they just make up stuff for giggles.

No, that's fine. If I made a misstep I want to correct it. Another example would be Peter Brook, a well-respected theater director. In an "open letter", he called The Tempest Shakespeare's "gravest mistake".
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...AH#v=onepage&q=the tempest worst play&f=false

There are also people who like The Tempest, but I happen to disagree with them.

 

[Oafman]

No, that's fine. If I made a misstep I want to correct it. Another example would be Peter Brook, a well-respected theater director. In an "open letter", he called The Tempest Shakespeare's "gravest mistake".
https://books.google.com/books?id=4VnYAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA561&lpg=PA561&dq=the+tempest+worst+play&source=bl&ots=OZmSOlrUgI&sig=sZ3RIheMdrEYcceS9vC-1i1ExaA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwit-eek_IvNAhWmIpoKHcpEBOcQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=the tempest worst play&f=false

There are also people who like The Tempest, but I happen to disagree with them.

Oh I agree entirely, it's a silly play. Shakespeare was at his best when he did more serious stuff.

 

[keith99]

No, I don't think it did. As I said, tedious repetition of profanity bores me, and I doubt that was the filmmaker's intent. I saw an action film just yesterday, where, during the chase scene the hero was constantly muttering the s-word. He used it dozens of times over the course of a few minutes. As I said, it bores me. My mind started to drift when I believe the intent was to convey extreme duress.

It reminded me of my college neighbor who couldn't complete a sentence without using the f-word multiple times. At one point, a friend of mine remarked to him, "Are you too stupid to think of any other adjectives?" Priceless.

On the repetition I agree. To illustrate one Science Fiction series involving the (very) rough equivalent of test pilots talks about eventually reaching the Oh S... moment. The explicative being said in the split second between realizing things are seriously wrong and the end, as in the death of the speaker. It is a strong marker. It is diluted and lost if someone is saying Oh S... all the time.

 

[John Davidson]

When I'm watching a film and someone utters a profanity, it's often only the first use that offends/frustrates me. As the story continues and the profanities mount, my attitude descends to boredom & distraction. It would be the same to me if, rather than spouting profanity, they dangled a plastic duck from a string in front of the characters every few minutes.

To me it demonstrates a pathetic lack of creativity, and I stop following the story and start thinking of all the interesting ways the character could have conveyed the proper attitude without a tedious repetition of profanity.

So, my question: For those who don't have a problem with the extensive use of profanity in film, would it be a distraction for you to watch a film that didn't have profanity in it?

I don't watch Rated R movies. If a movie has very much profanity I turn it off.

 

[John Davidson]

I'm pretty disappointed by some of the responses I see from "Christians" here.

Jesus said that we will be judged for every idle word we speak.

So profanity is unacceptable.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm pretty disappointed by some of the responses I see from "Christians" here.

Jesus said that we will be judged for every idle word we speak.

So profanity is unacceptable.

Non sequitur.

 

[John Davidson]

Non sequitur.

I base my logic on Christ the logos.

I don't look to Atheists for approval of my beliefs.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I base my logic on Christ the logos.

I don't look to Atheists for approval of my beliefs.

Without a definition of what an 'idle' word is and without an explanation of how profanity fits that definition, you have a non sequitur--Christ or no Christ.