# "Artistic" value of obscenity in modern cinema? Oldies don't need any to be artistic



## Fenestella (Oct 4, 2015)

*"Artistic" value of obscenity in modern cinema? Oldies don't need any to be artistic*

Speaking of the vulgarity in modern "art films" or "masterpieces", there are irredeemable ones, e.g., profanity every 10 seconds or so, such as the so-called masterpiece The Big Lebowski (1998); then there are redeemable ones, e.g., intimate explicit scenes are few and far between, and I've compared some longer versions with more such scenes and shorter versions with fewer such scenes, and the longer versions don't strike me as being more artistic than the shorter versions, such as Cinema Paradiso (1988).

Speaking of _Cinema Paradiso_, there is a montage of deleted kisses from the oldies, which begs the question: since most classic oldies certainly don't need obscenity to be artistic, do they even need the kisses to be artistic (not the abrupt cut at the moment when one's lips touch another one's, but an artful omission of the act)? In other words, does the very act of kissing add any artistic value to the classics?


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess there is a distinction between an art film and a film made for a more general audience. If it is necessary to propel the arc of the story, I'll put up with it. 

But personally, I don't see the value of gratuitous obscenity. It tells me that the filmmakers think that I'm so unintelligent/bored/apathetic that the only way to get my attention is for them to insert dirty/obscene things. 

Sure, an argument can be made for the necessity of vulgar language, like from the soldiers in Band of Brothers, or the use of nudity in Schindler's List, or violence, like in Saving Private Ryan. But when it's there just to get the rating up to R, it bothers me.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> But personally, I don't see the value of gratuitous obscenity.


it depends what is meant with gratuitous. A movie like Pink Flamingos for instance (and a lot of John Waters movies), which is on purpose a catalogue of obscenities and bad taste has to be seen in the context of a puritan, racist, homophobe America that had for decades the Hays code to regulate and censor what it was possible to see on a screen. In that case it was like a scream for freedom.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Fenestella said:


> Speaking of the vulgarity in modern "art films" or "masterpieces", t*here are irredeemable ones, e.g., profanity every 10 seconds or so, such as the so-called masterpiece The Big Lebowski (1998);* then there are redeemable ones, e.g., intimate explicit scenes are few and far between, and I've compared some longer versions with more such scenes and shorter versions with fewer such scenes, and the longer versions don't strike me as being more artistic than the shorter versions, such as Cinema Paradiso (1988).
> 
> Speaking of _Cinema Paradiso_, there is a montage of deleted kisses from the oldies, which begs the question: since most classic oldies certainly don't need obscenity to be artistic, do they even need the kisses to be artistic (not the abrupt cut at the moment when one's lips touch another one's, but an artful omission of the act)? In other words, does the very act of kissing add any artistic value to the classics?


Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.


----------



## Fenestella (Oct 4, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Yeah, well, that's just your opinion, man.


You are entitled to your opinion.
I'm not calling for censoring indecent scenes or banning obscene films. Your right to view, collect, and share them won't be infringed upon.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Fenestella said:


> You are entitled to your opinion.
> I'm not calling for censoring indecent scenes or banning obscene films. Your right to view, collect, and share them won't be infringed upon.


I think he was quoting the Dude here. I found it a funny film, but I only saw it recently and had too high an expectation. Generally I love the Coen brothers films

In terms of explicit sex, violence, language etc, there's no need for them. We know what's happening, we don't need to see it, or hear it. Especially graphic violence. I've taken to steering clear of films or shows that include it. I like to sleep peacefully in my bed. I also wish filmmakers had the invention of old film makers, who could portray all these things more creatively. and with - I would say - more depth and effect.

But I agree with what you say, I'm also not in favour of censorship, and many of my favourite films, confusingly enough, have contained violence and language - Goodfellas being an obvious example.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Kieran said:


> In terms of explicit sex, violence, language etc, there's no need for them.


There's no need for movies at all; I just don't see "need" as being significant here. I have to say that there's a puritanical streak to this thread.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

norman bates said:


> it depends what is meant with gratuitous. A movie like Pink Flamingos for instance (and a lot of John Waters movies), which is on purpose a catalogue of obscenities and bad taste has to be seen in the context of a puritan, racist, homophobe America that had for decades the Hays code to regulate and censor what it was possible to see on a screen. In that case it was like a scream for freedom.


That's why I added "if it's necessary to propel the arc of the story."


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

It depends on if it is artistic or cheap and gratuitous. To me the Coen Bros and Lynch use these elements in artistic ways. Tarantino is an example of a director I find gratuitous and distasteful in his use of violence, I'm not a fan of his films. I also find the movie Fight Club disgusting in its use and glorification of violence.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Obscene language in itself doesn't really offend me, I didn't really even notice it much in Lebowski. Maybe it is because I grew up around people that talked somewhat like that in their normal day to day lives. For me it is more about the context and the intentions and message of the film. Idiocracy is filled with obscenities, and also with witty social satire, and in my view has a brilliant message. If one gets offended by the language and focuses on that one will miss out on all the subtleties and the point of the film.


----------



## En Passant (Aug 1, 2020)

I believe some people still have the mindset of the 60s generation; That we live in a post-war society with boundaries ripe for destruction. Unfortunately there are no boundaries left to push. We live in a time were almost anything will receive and ok from the censors.

I am fine with vulgarity to a point as others have said. Obscenity for it’s own sake however has no merit and I feel it even puts the film outside the realm of an “art film” into a place closer to p*rnography than serious cinema. It is often the sign the director lacks maturity and or talent.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2020)

En Passant said:


> I believe some people still have the mindset of the 60s generation; That we live in a post-war society with boundaries ripe for destruction. Unfortunately there are no boundaries left to push. We live in a time were almost anything will receive and ok from the censors.
> 
> I am fine with vulgarity to a point as others have said. Obscenity for it's own sake however has no merit and I feel it even puts the film outside the realm of an "art film" into a place closer to p*rnography than serious cinema. It is often the sign the director lacks maturity and or talent.


Very well said.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> There's no need for movies at all; I just don't see "need" as being significant here. I have to say that there's a puritanical streak to this thread.


One person's puritanical streak is another person's values being upheld.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Christabel said:


> One person's puritanical streak is another person's values being upheld.


I agree with you concerning the real world. However, movies are fiction, and I gravitate toward them partially to escape reality.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2020)

Kieran said:


> I think he was quoting the Dude here. I found it a funny film, but I only saw it recently and had too high an expectation. Generally I love the Coen brothers films
> 
> In terms of explicit sex, violence, language etc, there's no need for them. We know what's happening, we don't need to see it, or hear it. Especially graphic violence. I've taken to steering clear of films or shows that include it. I like to sleep peacefully in my bed. I also wish filmmakers had the invention of old film makers, who could portray all these things more creatively. and with - I would say - more depth and effect.
> 
> But I agree with what you say, I'm also not in favour of censorship, and many of my favourite films, confusingly enough, have contained violence and language - Goodfellas being an obvious example.


"The Big Lebowski" is a favourite film. But I grew tired of the profanities, certainly. The humour was derived from the lack of self-awareness of a bunch of losers; the, er '*what have you's*'!! The film is full of gags that are unusual for American cinema and John Goodman's performance as the troubled, hair-trigger Vietnam vet and his cliched articulations that "my buddies didn't die face down in the slime in 'Nam for this" are pure gold. The Coen Brothers lampoon the generation of down-and-out hippies, and that's gold enough for me!! Actually, the character of The Dude was a composite of a couple of people known to Joel and Ethan Coen.

I despise the films like Goodfellas precisely because of the gratuitous violence and profanity; the unpleasant characters never garner my empathy so I never care what happens to them. There's a kind of pornographic quality to the profanity and violence of Scorsese's films which are enough to prevent my meaningful engagement. It's stylized and choreographed to the point of surrealism. Pass.

As ever, for me it's the script, script, script, script......

"*Charade*":

"Why do people lie?"
"Usually it's because they want something and they're afraid the truth won't get it for them".

A knock-out.

James Cagney talked about street characters in his acceptance speech at the AFI award in his honour, here:






Cagney was astute and intelligent enough to understand that the deep humour behind individuals who have tics and profanities is ripe for the picking. Humour is missing from Scorsese films.


----------



## Bill Schuster (Oct 22, 2019)

I have never, in my 52 years, understood the ideas of profanity or vulgarity. Words don't hurt me. Sex doesn't hurt me. Nudity doesn't hurt me. I get much more creative than Carlin's seven dirty words every day. War. Bigotry. Hatred. These things offend me. Pearl clutching, I find to be outdated. No offense to any oysters.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Christabel said:


> "The Big Lebowski" is a favourite film. But I grew tired of the profanities, certainly. The humour was derived from the lack of self-awareness of a bunch of losers; the, er '*what have you's*'!! The film is full of gags that are unusual for American cinema and John Goodman's performance as the troubled, hair-trigger Vietnam vet and his cliched articulations that "my buddies didn't die face down in the slime in 'Nam for this" are pure gold. The Coen Brothers lampoon the generation of down-and-out hippies, and that's gold enough for me!! Actually, the character of The Dude was a composite of a couple of people known to Joel and Ethan Coen.
> 
> I despise the films like Goodfellas precisely because of the gratuitous violence and profanity; the unpleasant characters never garner my empathy so I never care what happens to them. There's a kind of pornographic quality to the profanity and violence of Scorsese's films which are enough to prevent my meaningful engagement. It's stylized and choreographed to the point of surrealism. Pass.
> 
> ...


Some good points here, yes Goodman's character (Walter) was hilarious, but not only that there are subtleties in the movie that are accurate portrayals of real life, it is common for individuals suffering from PTSD to act that way, for example freaking out over minor incidents, and then brushing off major ones as nothing (f--- it dude let's go bowling).

Over all I think I agree with you on Good Fellas and Scorsese work as well. Not my cuppa. These types of movies generally tend to come across to me as a glamorization of obscene, criminal and violent aspects of life, more so than insightful criticism or commentary.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2020)

tdc said:


> Some good points here, yes Goodman's character (Walter) was hilarious, but not only that there are subtleties in the movie that are accurate portrayals of real life, it is common for individuals suffering from PTSD to act that way, for example freaking out over minor incidents, and then brushing off major ones as nothing (f--- it dude let's go bowling).
> 
> Over all I think I agree with you on Good Fellas and Scorsese work as well. Not my cuppa. These types of movies generally tend to come across to me as a glamorization of obscene, criminal and violent aspects of life, more so than insightful criticism or commentary.


I enjoyed your comments. As Cagney said in his AFI address in 1974, 'we owe a lot' to those types on the streets of New York from his youth. That he was able to observe them with humour and draw on their tics and idiosyncrasies for his characterizations spoke to his intelligence as an actor.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I think very often the obscenity reflects the film maker rather than the character. I have workEd in certain situations among characters you would expect you use lots of profanities and obscene language and actually they don’t as a rule. At least not nearly to the extent that is portrayed in certain movies. It is probably a reflection of the obscene nature of the moviemakers


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I, personally, never use profanity, and never have. I generally see it as a lack of more sophisticated vocabulary and means of expression. (I got a lot of teasing for my position when I worked construction during the summers of my High School and college days.) I have come to accept, and mostly just ignore, the profanity in so many films these days, and by most stand up comedians. (I recently stumbled across Jim Gaffigan as a stand up comedian who is very funny, generally without the blue material or profanity. He seems to have taken on the Bill Cosby role of comic dad, now that Cosby has been revealed have completely trampled all over that image in his personal life.) Generally, I think the use of profanity is a cheap and easy way to seem edgy, and covers for material that, on its own, really isn't all that interesting.


----------



## En Passant (Aug 1, 2020)

Christabel said:


> Very well said.


Thank you I was hesitant to post that but I feel relieved now.


----------



## En Passant (Aug 1, 2020)

JAS said:


> I, personally, never use profanity, and never have. I generally see it as a lack of more sophisticated vocabulary and means of expression. (I got a lot of teasing for my position when I worked construction during the summers of my High School and college days.) I have come to accept, and mostly just ignore, the profanity in so many films these days, and by most stand up comedians. (I recently stumbled across Jim Gaffigan as a stand up comedian who is very funny, generally without the blue material or profanity. He seems to have taken on the Bill Cosby role of comic dad, now that Cosby has been revealed have completely trampled all over that image in his personal life.) Generally, I think the use of profanity is a cheap and easy way to seem edgy, and covers for material that, on its own, really isn't all that interesting.


Although I agree with you partly. I had a very mixed up brining one half of my family are working class and the other half are upper-class. The upper-classes use far more profanity than the working or middle classes in my experience. It always stuck me as odd and perhaps my family are just "eccentric" it seems true no matter where you go.



DavidA said:


> I think very often the obscenity reflects the film maker rather than the character. I have workEd in certain situations among characters you would expect you use lots of profanities and obscene language and actually they don't as a rule. At least not nearly to the extent that is portrayed in certain movies. It is probably a reflection of the obscene nature of the moviemakers


100% agree and given the nature of things being exposed (we all knew deep down) in Hollywood that doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DavidA said:


> I think very often the obscenity reflects the film maker rather than the character. I have workEd in certain situations among characters you would expect you use lots of profanities and obscene language and actually they don't as a rule. At least not nearly to the extent that is portrayed in certain movies. It is probably a reflection of the obscene nature of the moviemakers


I think Quentin Tarantino himself has said that if he could not realize his perverse fantasies through film making, he would have likely end up as a mass murderer


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Christabel said:


> "The Big Lebowski" is a favourite film. But I grew tired of the profanities, certainly. The humour was derived from the lack of self-awareness of a bunch of losers; the, er '*what have you's*'!! The film is full of gags that are unusual for American cinema and John Goodman's performance as the troubled, hair-trigger Vietnam vet and his cliched articulations that "my buddies didn't die face down in the slime in 'Nam for this" are pure gold. The Coen Brothers lampoon the generation of down-and-out hippies, and that's gold enough for me!! Actually, the character of The Dude was a composite of a couple of people known to Joel and Ethan Coen.
> 
> I despise the films like Goodfellas precisely because of the gratuitous violence and profanity; the unpleasant characters never garner my empathy so I never care what happens to them. There's a kind of pornographic quality to the profanity and violence of Scorsese's films which are enough to prevent my meaningful engagement. It's stylized and choreographed to the point of surrealism. Pass.
> 
> ...


I agree with most of this, except the Scorsese thing. His films can be violent but not gratuitously, if his stated purpose is to achieve the opposite to glamorising violence. And nowhere is it glamorised. He's chosen to depict that life as it is, which is ugly and terrifying, but there's also humour there too. There's always great humour in Scorsese films, though often it's of the darker variety.

But can he make thug gangster flicks without explicit violence? I believe he could, but he prefers to depict them more realistically. Like Clint's Unforgiven, he doesn't spare the horses in showing how brutal the life is.

So in a way, it's gratuitous violence, and in another way it isn't, because in order to criticise a violent lifestyle he had to show it in all its tawdry, wasteful, nihilistic ugliness...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> There's no need for movies at all; I just don't see "need" as being significant here. I have to say that there's a puritanical streak to this thread.


"Need" as in, "creative need." Filmmakers can depict everything without having to actually show it. But mine isn't necessarily a puritanical stance. As I say above, if a filmmaker wants to critique a violent lifestyle, sometimes they need to depict violence, to try turn people away from it.

But do I have a smudge of the Puritan when it comes to explicit sex and violence in movies? I surely do. I think a violent culture breeds violence. I think showing youngsters that violence is glamorous, that it comes without human cost, that human life is cheap, has a terrible effect. I remember a few years back at a midnight screening of Batman 3, a lunatic with a rifle opened fire on the audience. He was dressed as a comic book character. He killed a baby, I believe, and wounded their infant sister. The blurb after was inevitably about guns. My thoughts were, what's a baby and an infant doing at a midnight screening of Batman 3? We knew already these films were explicitly violent and dark, they would traumatise a child, and there's two babes in the audience?

A lunacy almost as grave as the gunman's.

As for explicit sex in films, we no longer see the character she plays, when a famous actress disrobes - we see a naked famous woman. It's unnecessary and misogynist. And I'm not a prude, I love to see naked actresses, this is how I know we no longer think of their fictional character...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Kieran said:


> I agree with most of this, except the Scorsese thing. His films can be violent but not gratuitously, if his stated purpose is to achieve the opposite to glamorising violence. And nowhere is it glamorised. He's chosen to depict that life as it is, which is ugly and terrifying, but there's also humour there too. There's always great humour in Scorsese films, though often it's of the darker variety.
> 
> But can he make thug gangster flicks without explicit violence? I believe he could, but he prefers to depict them more realistically. Like Clint's Unforgiven, he doesn't spare the horses in showing how brutal the life is.
> 
> So in a way, it's gratuitous violence, and in another way it isn't, because in order to criticise a violent lifestyle he had to show it in all its tawdry, wasteful, nihilistic ugliness...


The measure I use for gratuitous violence is the balance between the number of people and amount of detail they have to die, and how important it is in the main character's plight. If it was life and death like in War movies, I don't see it as gratuitous violence. But in Scorsese movies, that people die and the extent he shows it, and the point was to show how the main character could strain his relationship with his daughter and we're to feel sorry for him (as in the Irishman), then I believe that is gratuitous. That is why I hate Scorsese, other peoples lives are cheaper than the affairs of the main character. On top of it, these characters are made to look cool and slick. It sends a bad message. I read before that he admitted he always found the villain more interesting in the movies he used to watch.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> The measure I use for gratuitous violence is the balance between the number of people and amount of detail they have to die, and how important it is in the main character's plight. If it was life and death like in War movies, I don't see it as gratuitous violence. But in Scorsese movies, that people die and the extent he shows it, and the point was to show how the main character could strain his relationship with his daughter and we're to feel sorry for him (as in the Irishman), then I believe that is gratuitous. That is why I hate Scorsese, other peoples lives are cheaper than the affairs of the main character. On top of it, these characters are made to look cool and slick. It sends a bad message. I read before that he admitted he always found the villain more interesting in the movies he used to watch.


There isn't a huge amount of violence in The Irishman, and de Niro's character faces his comeuppance in the end, he's lost everybody who cared about him, and who he cared about. He's left facing the horrors of his lifestyle. So there were consequences for the violence, same as in all Scorsese films. The old Catholic moralist in him creates gritty passion plays that have a dreadfully costly moral in the end...


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Kieran said:


> There isn't a huge amount of violence in The Irishman, and de Niro's character faces his comeuppance in the end, he's lost everybody who cared about him, and who he cared about. He's left facing the horrors of his lifestyle. So there were consequences for the violence, same as in all Scorsese films. The old Catholic moralist in him creates gritty passion plays that have a dreadfully costly moral in the end...


I see it in a different light, that De Niro's character is some sort of unsung hero, maybe because of what I read about Scorsese's interest towards villains. I read also some views on the Godfather that I shared, it's presenting these murderers in too sympathetic of a light. Oh, i forgot Mean Streets, I do feel Scorsese presented well the consequences in that movie are to be abhorred (Keitel lost his girlfriend, and likely his bro). But maybe also because I feel he was on a tighter leash. By Goodfellas, I feel there was an obscene amount of indulgence in the violence, and profanity.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> I see it in a different light, that De Niro's character is some sort of unsung hero,


I don't think it was then intention of Scorsese at all. He also shows how his daughter despises the brutality and the murders of the father.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Ever see or read _Titus Andronicus_ or any of the revenge tragedies? Here's a bit of the plot from _Titus_ courtesy of Wikipedia.

"During a royal hunt the following day, Aaron persuades Demetrius and Chiron to kill Bassianus, so they may rape Lavinia. They do so, throwing Bassianus's body into a pit and dragging Lavinia deep into the forest before violently raping her. To keep her from revealing what has happened, they cut out her tongue and cut off her hands."

And there are plenty of obscene references in Shakespeare.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2020)

Sometimes too much profanity prevents kids from seeing an otherwise great movie. _Stand by Me_ comes to mind. First of all, did 12 year olds drop that many f-bombs in the 50s? Secondly, if the director thought it just_ had_ to have some, perhaps just that one at the end when Gordie confronts Ace would have been effective...probably more so if it were the only one. However, the frequent profanity earned it an R-rating, which theoretically kept kids under the age of 17 from seeing it without an adult present--and probably kept some parents from allowing their kids to see it at all.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

KlavierKing said:


> Sometimes too much profanity prevents kids from seeing an otherwise great movie. _Stand by Me_ comes to mind. First of all, did 12 year olds drop that many f-bombs in the 50s?


They sure did - I was there.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> They sure did - I was there.


Not when I was growing up, but that was many decades ago when people had respect for others. And themselves. I look back now at the 'rebel' films of the 1950s as absolutely tame in comparison with today. "Rebel Without a Cause" was over-wrought but at least there was a contest between family values and emerging individual freedom and independence - and the cost of that very often to family and community. "*Stand by Me*" is an excellent film which I thoroughly enjoyed, but I felt the teens in that were more like 25 year olds in their 'knowing' behaviour most of the time.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Christabel said:


> Not when I was growing up, but that was many decades ago when people had respect for others. And themselves.


I think we grew up about the same time. In my area of the world, boys were swearing all the time when only in the company of other boys. When adults were around, no swearing. When girls were in the vicinity, no swearing. The only time girls knew we were swearing was when they were spying on us (they did that a lot).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> I think we grew up about the same time. In my area of the world, boys were swearing all the time when only in the company of other boys. When adults were around, no swearing. When girls were in the vicinity, no swearing. The only time girls knew we were swearing was when they were spying on us (they did that a lot).


Haha dude this made my day.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I think we grew up about the same time. In my area of the world, boys were swearing all the time when only in the company of other boys. When adults were around, no swearing. When girls were in the vicinity, no swearing. The only time girls knew we were swearing was when they were spying on us (they did that a lot).


Were the boys using f-bombs among themselves? I'd like to know when that word became a thing that was freely used. 
Now even certain women I know in their late 80's use it, when they're good and angry about something.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Open Book said:


> Were the boys using f-bombs among themselves? I'd like to know when that word became a thing that was freely used.


I clearly indicated that they were doing it. As for the generation before mine, I haven't a clue.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Bulldog said:


> I clearly indicated that they were doing it. As for the generation before mine, I haven't a clue.


Your last post just said "swearing", which covers words like "damn". But now that I have read more of the thread I see that you did indicate it.

Berlin Philharmonic broadcasts changed their format for the pandemic. They decided to interview the musicians live and informally after concerts. It was funny to hear the principal oboist, whose first language is not English, drop f-bombs and other salty words in English. I wondered if this was normal in his culture or if he thought it was acceptable for American consumption because he's seen American movies.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2020)

Bulldog said:


> I think we grew up about the same time. In my area of the world, boys were swearing all the time when only in the company of other boys. When adults were around, no swearing. When girls were in the vicinity, no swearing. The only time girls knew we were swearing was when they were spying on us (they did that a lot).


Well, my experience was obviously different. As the eldest of 4 females in a family (no boys) none of us ever learned what boys were up to when they were together. I went on to have 3 sons of my own and NOW I know!! One of our sons says that when he was in highschool there were 2 girls who wanted to hang out with the boys because they couldn't tolerate the bitchiness of the girls - who could wreck the lives of other girls if they had an inclination to do so (and many do have that inclination).

I can honestly say that in our home while we were growing up (and beyond) we never heard any swearing, and neither was there any heard in the circle of my parents and their friends. Their children didn't swear either, neither did my friends at school (single sex). It was foreign to us until we grew beyond the age of 18 - precisely at about the time popular culture became degraded and debased.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Christabel said:


> Well, my experience was obviously different. As the eldest of 4 females in a family (no boys) none of us ever learned what boys were up to when they were together. I went on to have 3 sons of my own and NOW I know!! One of our sons says that when he was in highschool there were 2 girls who wanted to hang out with the boys because they couldn't tolerate the bitchiness of the girls - who could wreck the lives of other girls if they had an inclination to do so (and many do have that inclination).
> 
> I can honestly say that in our home while we were growing up (and beyond) we never heard any swearing, and neither was there any heard in the circle of my parents and their friends. Their children didn't swear either, neither did my friends at school (single sex). It was foreign to us until we grew beyond the age of 18 - precisely at about the time popular culture became degraded and debased.


Feminism made it possible for women to have an equal right to utter obscenities. This became noticeable in the 70's. Once that happened, it was all out in the open and formerly forbidden words appeared in the movies.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Open Book said:


> Feminism made it possible for women to have an equal right to utter obscenities. This became noticeable in the 70's. Once that happened, it was all out in the open and formerly forbidden words appeared in the movies.


I agree. Well, it's not all bad. Swear words are highly descriptive and can be very effective as tools of communication. Also, it's not a bad way to let off steam. I find that I feel much better when I swear a lot in the privacy of my home after hearing the crap that my leader spews on a daily basis.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2020)

Open Book said:


> Feminism made it possible for women to have an equal right to utter obscenities. This became noticeable in the 70's. Once that happened, it was all out in the open and formerly forbidden words appeared in the movies.


I'd have to agree with you. I was part of the era of 'first wave feminism' and Dr. Greer ("The Female Eunuch") is actually Australian. However, I never adopted any of their ideologies because I didn't feel I had to; my husband wouldn't have been fussed if I'd decided to climb Mt. Everest. He never felt threatened by females for a mega-second. I've read "*The Second Sex*" by Simone de Beauvoir. It did nothing for me. In fact, my spouse bought it for me to read decades ago. Lots of women gained something from the work of these pioneering females; today I'm much more cynical about it, to be honest.

A film like "The Man with the Golden Arm" could be gritty, realistic and disturbing without profanities. I think something has been lost when we impoverished the language resorting to swearing. For me, it's the glory of the script and the words which is of central concern - along with superbly crafted images. That doesn't mean a great script cannot exist when it has profanities - it can - but it's not the soaring experience for me. Think of a film like "Donnie Brasco" - a good film - which is full of expletives. The same film, which has a fine writer, has some wonderful lines, apposite and clever. But it will never belong in the same ball park as a writer like Joseph Manckiewicz (just to name but one). His words for "All About Eve", which I discussed in this section of the board, and "Cleopatra" raised these films several degrees of artistry higher than very many others.

Ah, but we're spoilt for choice in cinema and as long as I live I'll celebrate that fact.


----------

