Well, I don't take PC morality into account in a story.  

But if I, via my own ethical judgment, feel that portraying a person or a class in a certain light is abusively stereotypical, I don't do it.  

For two reasons:

1) Cliché characters are lazy writing.

2) Stereotypes *can* be toxic concepts that shouldn't be propagated.

I use the term "abusively stereotypical", because people can and do sometimes fit stereotypes.  For instance, I wouldn't be against creating a flamboyant drag queen.  As long as that's not *all* the character is in the story (and assuming that the character's not just an extra that's in the script for two whole seconds.) . The issue for me is that good stories are about ideas. (And characters you care about.) I'd argue that some ideas - and underlying premises - *should* be outright rejected.  There's lots of toxic concepts out there: everything from racial and gender stereotypes, to the more subtle idea that every single businessman or corporation must be depicted as monstrously evil.

About the only case where I would play a character as black and white is in an outright satire.  For instance, my antagonist in The Nigerian Job is totally evil.  But that's meant to be camp.

Quoted from RayW With this in mind I have two questions. One, do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

No.

and

No.

It's my opinion that people take movies, tv shows and novels way too seriously. In this day and age I do not expect a reasonable person to take anything shown in entertainment mediums as fact. People have book and the internet to educate themselves. A writer is there to write something entertaining, if that is racist, unethical who cares, it's not there to be taken seriously, it's only there so you kill some time.

my 2 cents.

Quoted from RayW ...do writers have any ethical or moral responsibilities/obligations to not unjustly paint a community or technology as bad? Two, have you yourself caught yourself altering the way you craft an antagonist or adversary due to ethical or moral reasons?

Interesting debate Ray.

1. Yes. I would agree that as writers we do have that responsibility - mainly due to the 'unjustly' part -- I'd be quite happy to have Roma Gypsies as the antagonist, but I'd take care that I'm not painting them in a false light - that I'd be able to justify how I'd drawn them for the story.

2. Tricky one -- but I do agree that the antag has really got to be as good (or better) that the protag - no use making them weak, else there's no real victory. So, I may never have re-written due to the above, but then as I think you have the responsibility, I'd have written accordingly in the first place - I like to think. And I can't think of any ready examples of stereotyping making the antag more challenging or interesting.

To be honest, when you put it in black & white like you've done, I can see a lot of people answering 'No' to the first question, like they have done. But I don't really see a lot of people writing like that - deliberately depicting people or technology as bad with no justification - I know one of the OWC scripts took a negative on phone technology, but that was woven into the story, and I think was used justifyably.

1. Yes. This is particularly clear where you use the term "community". Unjustly portraying an entire community would be racist propaganda. Not only will it probably not get made, it will be one dimensional and crap.

2. Sort of. In a very short film called Nick of Time, several black actors applied to play the role of a thief (In the film a thief steals a bag from a train stationand when he looks in it finds there is a bomb inside..he blows up).

The rest of the cast were white, so to me it would have looked badly racist to cast a sole black guy as the thief, but then you get the strange dichotomy that you are selecting on racial lines and someone is losing work because they are black. Can't really win.

Glad you made the 2nd point, Rick, and you are obviously aware that it works against your first point. That's why I would caution against over-sensitivity and political correctness because it can also lead to the absurd. For example, it's unfair to only portray Muslims in film as extremists or terrorists. But at the same time, films aim to be relevant, and the reality of our world is what it is. So while I would hate to see Muslims typecast, I also think it's ridiculous when films are afraid to portray an Islamic terrorist for politically correct reasons.

I also prefer to avoid politics in film, unless it's a period piece. In every American film or TV show, the bad guy is an over the top conservative who talks about Jesus while he steals money from children. It doesn't remotely reflect reality,it reflects the caricature of painted by the opposite side. It's best to keep contemporary politics out of film if possible. And it's smarter marketing.

Another example would be the working Irish-American from South Boston. Typically he'll be portrayed as a heavy drinking brawler. The criticism of that should be that with all the Boston movies over the last 20 years that's become a little too familiar. But as there is much truth to the stereotype, there should be no complaint about it being unfair. If there is a basis in reality, I don't think a stereotype should be off limits. Parisian French are portrayed a certain way, Italians a certain way, etc. If it's based on something accurate, it should be within bounds.

It's an intriguing question, and one I think about often. I tend to be surprised by how many artists simultaneously desire to move, inspire, and entertain with their work, but then immediately back down from the idea that art can encourage any form of negative, lazy, ignorant, or malicious thought. Frankly I think most artists are only comfortable taking responsibility for the positivity their work generates, while sweeping any questions of negative influence under the rug by proclaiming, "It's just a novel/movie/song/etc. Nobody takes it seriously!"

I find it hard to believe anyone can genuinly accept this narrow-minded excuse. Do the images, words, and ideas we encounter on a daily basis influence us, either positively or negatively? Of course they do! Otherwise there would be nothing compelling about stories because we would take nothing away from them. If filtering information we might find morally disagreeable, useless, or nonsensical out of an otherwise positive experience was as easy as some seem to think, Nike shoe sales would not have skyrocketed as a result of aggressive advertising that hawked them as "cool" and promised that they would increase the wearer's athletic talents or their abilities to fit in. Coolness is a construct and the other claims make no logical sense, so why would people buy into the hype? Because our minds are complex and malleable and human beings operate at the intersection of logic and emotion, rather than logic alone. I can be told statistics all day regarding the fact that a white man is three times more likely to own a gun than a black man (just made this up for the sake of example), but if the majority of representations of black men in movies and television are gangbanger thugs who rob and kill, I'm a lot more likely to cross the street to avoid an oncoming black man than a white one.

Having said that, do writers have a responsibility to avoid imbuing prejudices and stereotypes into their work? That's a tough question. In an ideal world I would say that writers have an obligation to remain as open-minded, enlightened, and empathic as possible, because they are inherently telling someone else's story and a myopic point of view will only make your storytelling skills suffer. But I wouldn't say that translates into a responsibility. The appreciation of art is democratic; you have the right to craft a two-dimensional stereotype as much as the audience has a right to criticize you for it. And, as I believe the wheels of social justice/equality do turn, albeit slowly, it follows that a forward-thinking society's art will progress, and it doesn't matter quite as much what a fringe contingent of angry racist sexist homophobes write into their screenplays to take out their rage on the world at large because they are dying out and their words will one day go completely unheeded.

As to the second question, I have not changed anything in my own work that I can remember, though there are things I have written in the past that I no longer endorse. One example is a short I wrote in college about a knight who arrives at a castle only to discover the princess he is meant to rescue is exceedingly ugly. At the time I thought it was a satire of our society's increasingly high standards of beauty, and the importance placed thereon, but looking back on it I realize I too often went for the easy joke and made fun of the ugly princess rather than sympathized with her. If I meant to do anything with that short I would give it a rewrite to focus the humor on the knight's inability to deal with the shattering of his superficial definition of glory and bravery instead of making the princess pathetic and awful just because she is not beautiful.

good post Maarow.

About slavery thing.  Check the origin of word "Slave"  It comes from arabic language "SLAV" nowadays Russians  when they transported them to arabia as slaves.  So slaves have nothing to do with blacks originally so stop propaganding anti-white bulshit.  And by the way that clippers owner is Jewish so here you go.

INTS, yes, don't worry, we all remember that you're an anti-Semite. Please educate yourself and/or go away.

Dustin, Snoop's not "my boy" (though Gin and Juice was my jam...) and I didn't condone his comments, this specific one or in general. You've brought up a lot of stuff that I don't feel like arguing about (though if that's a cop-out, I'm happy to continue via PM rather than further adding to the little B plot we've got going in this thread), but let's just agree that the way education has framed historical slavery and racism is a major problem and that everyone would benefit greatly from a "truer" education on black (and general) history.

That doesn't, however, change my belief that what Sterling said was fundamentally racist -- I used the words "discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group," which I think is a reasonable description of the suggestion that black people shouldn't be at the games or featured on her Instagram -- while what Snoop said was, at best, superficially racist. To me it's the same as the difference between "nigger" and "redneck." Redneck is a conditional racial slur; it's aimed at a specific "race" (obligatory "race is a social construct" disclaimer here), but rather than describing the whole race describes members of that race with certain characteristics. "Nigger," on the other hand, describes an entire "race" -- doesn't matter who you are or how you act, if you're brown, you've probably been treated to that word sometime or other in your life. Sterling was called a "redneck" not because he was white, but because he had exhibited specific characteristics -- in particular, being a racist douchebag -- that Snoop characterized with the word "redneck." When Sterling targeted people, he was targeting them for the colour of their skin. When Snoop targeted Sterling, he was targeting Sterling for his behaviour. That is different.

---

Kev, I agree with what you and Rick have brought up to an extent, but I'm wondering as well about context? I have two questions:

1. Of course it's the case that movies shouldn't shy away from having, for example, an Islamic terrorist as a character. But to what extent does the content of films in general at that time affect this? What I mean is, is it okay for every action or thriller film to have Islamic terrorists as the bad guys? And if not, how does that line get drawn? Shouldn't the incidence of Islamic bad guys in films somewhat correlate to the incidence of Islamic bad guys in real life? Or no? Not sure about this one, interested in your thoughts.

2. Do you think it's possible for films to be apolitical, or to "avoid politics," as you put it? You've pointed out a trend with bad guys in movies -- even The Muppets managed to draw the ire of Fox News a while ago with their oil baron antagonist or whatever. Films don't exist in a vacuum and pretty much all of them will offend the political sensibilities of some -- what does it mean for a film to avoid politics?

Maarow, well said.

Finally, just wanted to point out that what Janet brings up is important -- nobody should be taking "PC morality" into account when designing their story. "PC morality" is made-up bullhooey. To the extent that one considers ethics to be important to the stories they tell, it should only ever be personal ethics.

Quoted from Heretic ...but let's just agree that the way education has framed historical slavery and racism is a major problem and that everyone would benefit greatly from a "truer" education on black (and general) history.

Of course. As far as I am concerned, poor education (outright lying) is the reason for a lot of troubles we have today.

Quoted from Heretic That doesn't, however, change my belief that what Sterling said was fundamentally racist -- I used the words "discouraging the presence and visibility of an entire ethnic group," which I think is a reasonable description of the suggestion that black people shouldn't be at the games or featured on her Instagram -- while what Snoop said was, at best, superficially racist. To me it's the same as the difference between "nigger" and "redneck." Redneck is a conditional racial slur; it's aimed at a specific "race" (obligatory "race is a social construct" disclaimer here), but rather than describing the whole race describes members of that race with certain characteristics. "Nigger," on the other hand, describes an entire "race." Sterling was called a "redneck" not because he was white, but because he had exhibited specific characteristics -- in particular, being a racist douchebag -- that Snoop characterized with the word "redneck." When Sterling targeted people, he was targeting them for the colour of their skin. When Snoop targeted Sterling, he was targeting Sterling for his behaviour. That is different.

When Snoop targeted Sterling he did so to release pent up racial aggression. Redneck is a white slave word. It might have been overused and abused since then, just like the colour 'nigger' but it is representative of our white slave days. Snoop Dogg knows that. He knew exactly what he was saying and so does a lot of the black community. Seems only white people that don't understand where the word came from.

I agree though that what Sterling said was racist too. I just feel that Snoops reaction is hypocritical. Snoop should not be allowed to respond to racism with racism. And, even worse, people should not get behind him like it is okay.

I see a double standard. It's okay for black people to be racist... here's what I see:

Quoted Text "Like my niggas from South Central Los Angeles they found that they couldn't handle us; Bloods, CRIPS, on the same squad, with the Essays [Latino gangbangers] up, and nigga, it's time to rob and mob and break the white man off something lovely"; "The Day the Niggaz Took Over"; Dr Dre, The Chronic, 1993, Interscope Records, under Time Warner in 1993.

Quoted Text "Bust a Glock; devils [whites] get shot. . . . when God give the word me herd like the buffalo through the neighborhood; watch me blast. . . . I'm killing more crackers [whites] than Bosnia-Herzegovina, each and everyday. . . . don't bust until you see the whites of his eyes, the whites of his skin. . . . Louis Farrakhan . . . Bloods and CRIPS, and little old me, and we all getting ready for the enemy"; "Enemy"; Ice Cube, Lethal Injection, 1993, Priority Records, Thorn EMI; now called The EMI Group, United Kingdom.

Quoted Text "Rhymes is rugged like burnt buildings in Harlem; the Ol Dirty Bastard. . . . I'm also militant. . . . snatching devils up by the hair, then cut his head off"; "Cuttin Headz"; Ol Dirty Bastard, Return of the 36 Chambers: the Dirty Version; 1995, Elektra Entertainment, Time Warner, USA.

Devils are white people. This is all allowed and even applauded by white people. Why?

**edit** Something else being forgotten here is that Sterling's phone call was private. Snoop made a public racist statement. Which is worse... according to the law anyway. As far as I'm aware it is fine to be a racist privately, the law only has an issue when you do it publicly.

Chris, as far as politics, the key word is try. For example, I'm ok with a film exploring an issue. I'm just wary of trying to push agendas where it doesn't belong. Like if we have a thriller about terrorism, do we always need the Dick Cheney caricature? That's contemporary politics being inserted for no reason. It's annoying, and considering the more than half the country voted for that ticket, it's bad marketing. But often Hollywood just can't resist doing it purely for partisan reasons. That kind of thing spoils the film.

As far as sensitivity to certain groups, I think it should be weighed when writing the story, but we should not let political correctness determine the decision. In the end, the biggest question than should be asked is whether the portrayal is based in reality. In Saudi Arabia, they make films which show Jews eating Palestinian children. A Hollywood example might be the film that portrays the conservative politician as being completely heartless and evil. If these things don't reflect reality, they don't belong.

So I think we're on the same page. We don't want to reach to easy stereotypes, that can be lazy writing. We should try to consider if we are being fair in our portrayal. And while there is no way to completely avoid the political, we should avoid taking easy cheap shots and try to not spoil a film with contemporary political messaging.