Quoted from Blakkwolfe South Park is the last bastion of free (or at least attempted) speech in the known world. It's a matter of censorship. A writer shouldn't be afraid to write something for fear of being offensive (Sometimes I write just to BE offensive...sometimes it works, other times it goes down in flames like last month's MP entry) but at the end of the day, it is still a creative, artistic pursuit and it's frustrating when that muse has to be restrained because it might offend somebody, such as the printing of a certain cartoon (with murderous consequences)...The line has been drawn, and we are no longer free.

I agree with you 100% Blakkwolfe and I do not think there is any such thing as Free Speech left in the world, even the US which proclaims itself to be the land of the free is no such thing anymore. But I do feel strongly that with the right to free speech should also come responsibility and there are some things that are better left unsaid, even when something is the truth. We would live in a far worse society if people said exactly what they wanted all the time especially if the sole intent is to offend someone. I am not talking about the cartoons of Mohammed or South Park here, none of which should cause offense, I have no time for anyone without a sense of humor! But that is not to say I do not believe there should be boundaries, where they should be I do not know. But it comes back my point that it is not the words nor the actions that people should be offended by but the intent behind them, If Cartman calls Token a "Black Idiot" then it is funny because we know Cartman is an ignorant, racist, stupid boy (of course rather cool with it!) But if someone who should knows better called Token the same then it takes on a whole different, unpleasant meaning which in real life is unacceptable and in a screenplay would make your character undesirable and you should make him just as unacceptable within the world that your story takes place.

Quoted from Old Time Wesley I think it's the execution of the material. I remember a script on here called "Skullfuck: Battlefrogs" or something like that in which Bert hated and a bunch of people were offended by it's blatant racial dialogue (In the descriptions)

Haha -- I remember that one.  My main problem is that I was embarrassed to have it hosted on these boards.  Whether the script was just one big goof or an honest attempt at comedy was never determined for sure.

Racist or no?  You decide:

Quoted from Battlefrogs, slightly edited MONTAGE: Battle Frogs killing black kids. Battle Frogs killing black dudes. Battle Frogs raping hot black babes. Battle Frogs raping ugly black babes. Battle Frogs killing all the raped black babes. Tearing through the street in a chopped humvee, with a machine gun mounted to the back, shooting up n*****s just like in Black Hawk Down, the best movie ever made (about shooting n*****s.)

If the boards can survive that, Zack, I suspect they can survive just about anything that you can dish out...

Quoted from Murphy I do not think there is any such thing as Free Speech left in the world...

The script is still here, although the thread is (thankfully) locked.  That was Don's call -- and say what you might about deleted posts -- he is a true champion of free speech around here.  I don't think that gets acknowledged enough, sometimes.  We get a good bit of leeway in this little playground Don has set up for us.
  
I bitched plenty about his decision to leave that script up, but I still respect him for it.

Quoted from Murphy I agree with you 100% Blakkwolfe and I do not think there is any such thing as Free Speech left in the world, even the US which proclaims itself to be the land of the free is no such thing anymore. But I do feel strongly that with the right to free speech should also come responsibility and there are some things that are better left unsaid, even when something is the truth. We would live in a far worse society if people said exactly what they wanted all the time especially if the sole intent is to offend someone. I am not talking about the cartoons of Mohammed or South Park here, none of which should cause offense, I have no time for anyone without a sense of humor! But that is not to say I do not believe there should be boundaries, where they should be I do not know. But it comes back my point that it is not the words nor the actions that people should be offended by but the intent behind them, If Cartman calls Token a "Black Idiot" then it is funny because we know Cartman is an ignorant, racist, stupid boy (of course rather cool with it!) But if someone who should knows better called Token the same then it takes on a whole different, unpleasant meaning which in real life is unacceptable and in a screenplay would make your character undesirable and you should make him just as unacceptable within the world that your story takes place.

Yeah, I think the whole point of free speech is that it leaves the moral responsibility with the individual, not the state. You should 100% be able to say whatever you want, even racist things, without having to fear being put in jail, but if you do, then it's gonna have other kinds of consequences. Like people will think you're a jerk and you will be banned from your favorite screenwriting forum.

South park is my favorite animated show of all time, exactly because they take responsibility and don't play favorites. "Either it's all okay, or none of it is". Yeah, I have a special kinda love for the Cartoon Wars episodes, being Danish and all.  

My feelings are that it is perfectly fine to have racist characters in the script, but not to have the script itself being racist in tone.

If the story is merely a hack and slash thriller featuring a white guy running round killing "coons" and the story glorifies him, then obviously it's going to be offensive.

Something that stands out in the majority of scripts that I receive from American writers, that happen to have people from different races in them, is that the conversations taking place between them almost always contain conflict based over race.

A white guy walks into a room and the black guy will call him cracker, the white guy will reply with some other racist jibe. They might be having a disagreement over the price of a cup of coffee, yet the dialogue is littered with racist words.

From an outsiders view it is very interesting to see how large a part race plays in another nations conscience.

You would get the impression from most scripts that white people and black people are incapable of talking about anything without first establsihing their racial identity.

In my opinion, it's only really justifiable (and necessary in story terms) to have racist characters if it deals directly with the theme and you are subverting it, by showing that it is wrong (eg American History X).

If you put racist characters or dialogue in the script just because "racists exist" or it's reaistic or whatever, but then there are no reprecussions for that behaviour, then you are guilty of normalising racism and the script itself becomes racist.

There are some scripts on here that contain elements of racism, written by some of the more popular writers that I could point out, but I don't want to start a long discussion about it.

I would hope that if you are dealing with a topic like race that you would take the time to consider other peoples points of view. There is a kind of unthinking racism that can creep into peoples work if you are not careful, choosing stereotypes or making false assumptions.

This is particularly true if ones influences are past films which themselves contain the type of unthinking racism I'm talking about.

Peopel get very upset about the "PC Crowd" and what have you, and free speech is all well and good BUT IF AND ONLY IF everyone is as free to speak and has the same opportunity of being heard as everyone else.

Film and Art in general are by their very nature political. A film made just to entertain is by definition a film that supports the present Capitalist system, for instance.

Writers as artists and more importantly as people, should take great care to make sure that they are dealing with the issues in a fair, open minded manner.

If nothing else, it will make you a better writer.

Rick.

A good introduction to the problem of race in Cinema, from a black perspective is this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Toms-Coo.....199890830&sr=8-1

I'd recommend that people read it because it helps to recognise certain innate problems that you might not recognise in yo ur own work/character.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films My feelings are that it is perfectly fine to have racist characters in the script, but not to have the script itself being racist in tone. If the story is merely a hack and slash thriller featuring a white guy running round killing "coons" and the story glorifies him, then obviously it's going to be offensive. Something that stands out in the majority of scripts that I receive from American writers, that happen to have people from different races in them, is that the conversations taking place between them almost always contain conflict based over race. A white guy walks into a room and the black guy will call him cracker, the white guy will reply with some other racist jibe. They might be having a disagreement over the price of a cup of coffee, yet the dialogue is littered with racist words. From an outsiders view it is very interesting to see how large a part race plays in another nations conscience. You would get the impression from most scripts that white people and black people are incapable of talking about anything without first establsihing their racial identity. In my opinion, it's only really justifiable (and necessary in story terms) to have racist characters if it deals directly with the theme and you are subverting it, by showing that it is wrong (eg American History X). If you put racist characters or dialogue in the script just because "racists exist" or it's reaistic or whatever, but then there are no reprecussions for that behaviour, then you are guilty of normalising racism and the script itself becomes racist. There are some scripts on here that contain elements of racism, written by some of the more popular writers that I could point out, but I don't want to start a long discussion about it. I would hope that if you are dealing with a topic like race that you would take the time to consider other peoples points of view. There is a kind of unthinking racism that can creep into peoples work if you are not careful, choosing stereotypes or making false assumptions. This is particularly true if ones influences are past films which themselves contain the type of unthinking racism I'm talking about. Peopel get very upset about the "PC Crowd" and what have you, and free speech is all well and good BUT IF AND ONLY IF everyone is as free to speak and has the same opportunity of being heard as everyone else. Film and Art in general are by their very nature political. A film made just to entertain is by definition a film that supports the present Capitalist system, for instance. Writers as artists and more importantly as people, should take great care to make sure that they are dealing with the issues in a fair, open minded manner. If nothing else, it will make you a better writer. Rick.

I'm not sure I agree with everything you said here. Especially this:

Quoted Text If you put racist characters or dialogue in the script just because "racists exist" or it's reaistic or whatever, but then there are no reprecussions for that behaviour, then you are guilty of normalising racism and the script itself becomes racist.

If you in a film have communist characters just because communists exist, and don't morally judge them, does the script then normalize communism? Is the script itself communist?

If not, then how is it different with racism? Both are controversial political and social theories, even if the latter is in a league of its own.
What if both communists and capitalists exist in the same script without being given preference?

Which begs the question: Is it always a movie's obligation to pass overt judgement on these kinds of things? Is the primary function of movies to shape minds and society, or to reflect it?

Quoted Text Peopel get very upset about the "PC Crowd" and what have you, and free speech is all well and good BUT IF AND ONLY IF everyone is as free to speak and has the same opportunity of being heard as everyone else.

By virtue of, and within the framwork of, the law that is. Right? Equal opportunity within the law, not necessarily in practice. A newspaper editor will always have greater opportunity to express himself than someone like me, because he has easier access to the means of communication and a greater audience, but from the law's Point of view we have the exact same opportunity and rights to express ourselves.

Free speech that didn't grant equal opportunity for expression would by definition not be free.

However, I do agree that you have to watch out for creeping latent racism in movies and TV. That's one of the few succesful comments of the movie Crash. There's a scene where a black actor is asked to act in a more "black" way, which is code for more 'colorful' and say words like "Dayamn!" and "Dat is whack, yo!" But I think this problem can be tied into Hollywood's need for clear-cut clichés in general rather than rooted in racism in general. One of the most stereotypefied characters in movies today is actually the high-school jock. You know, the one character who will never have a motive for being a douche, but arbitrarily shove people up against their locker and say stuff like "Where do you think you're going, faggot?" Never mind rationalization! He's the captain of the football team!

Quoted Text If you in a film have communist characters just because communists exist, and don't morally judge them, does the script then normalize communism? Is the script itself communist?

Communists have usually been the bad guys in films as far as i am aware. That in itself is a problem. Even childrens films like Ants express the notion that individualism is greater than the communal good. As i say all films make political statements (which is why the US insists upon throwing in film rights as part of foreign treaties all the time, their Government is well aware of what the films contain).

Matewan was the only film that comes to mind where the good guy was a communist, but there were good guys and bad guys on both sides in that film. That indeed is the point the film makes.

Every film makes a point about the people that it portrays, consciously or not. If the film merely shows the a "communist" being nice to everybody and that is it, he plays no further part in the film, then the author is clearly pointing out that Communism is good.

Quoted Text Which begs the question: Is it always a movie's obligation to pass overt judgement on these kinds of things? Is the primary function of movies to shape minds and society, or to reflect it?

Films either do pass judgement or they don't. The three act traditional structure almost always passes judgement. There is usually a very clear demarkation of the good and evil.

"Independent" films tend to leave judgement open a bit more.

A film is merely a window into the mind of the director, it almost never reflects society. Reflecting something as heterogenous as society is impossible. It can only reveal one mans (or a few at best) perception of it. Which is why all the subconscious things are wont to come out.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Communists have usually been the bad guys in films as far as i am aware. That in itself is a problem. Even childrens films like Ants express the notion that individualism is greater than the communal good. As i say all films make political statements (which is why the US insists upon throwing in film rights as part of foreign treaties all the time, their Government is well aware of what the films contain). Matewan was the only film that comes to mind where the good guy was a communist, but there were good guys and bad guys on both sides in that film. That indeed is the point the film makes.

I think there are far more, but in American and general anglophone cinema it's probably not as prevalent. Reds comes to mind. But in fact, I just watched the Great Debaters, in which Denzel Washington's character is implied to be communist by the movie. The film neither passes judgement on him nor absolves communism, because that's not what it's about.

However, I doubt that would be possible with racism. One of the few isms worse to Americans than communism.

Quoted Text Every film makes a point about the people that it portrays, consciously or not. If the film merely shows the a "communist" being nice to everybody and that is it, he plays no further part in the film, then the author is clearly pointing out that Communism is good.

I disagree. While it's true it makes a point about the people it portrays it doesn't necessarily make a point about their politics. Only 2-dimensional characters ARE their political beliefs. Consider the Danish movie "In China They Eat Dogs". The whole point of that movie is a sort of moral ambivalence (hence the title: In China it's all right to eat dogs, in Denmark it isn't. It's neither morally right nor wrong), and one of its main characters is an obnoxious mysogynist racist that the movie eventually fails to give his come-uppance. Is racism bad? Yes, but the movie is indifferent towards the question. It's not what it's about.

I feel like there is a sort of deconstructionist view in what you're saying, when you talk about a movie's unconscious judgement of characters. If it's unconscious or unintentional, then how do you know it's not just something you infer on its part?

Quoted Text Films either do pass judgement or they don't. The three act traditional structure almost always passes judgement. There is usually a very clear demarkation of the good and evil. "Independent" films tend to leave judgement open a bit more.

Well, obviously they either pass judgmet or they don't. It's not like there's a third option out there.   But I think a lot of "world" cinema is much more nuanced than traditional (I sorta feel there is an implied "Hollywood" here) movies.

Quoted Text A film is merely a window into the mind of the director, it almost never reflects society. Reflecting something as heterogenous as society is impossible. It can only reveal one mans (or a few at best) perception of it. Which is why all the subconscious things are wont to come out.

Come on, that's semantics. Of course movies can reflect aspects of society and comment on it. I never said it was an objective or unbiased mirror.