BBC cuts racist lines from classic Fawlty Towers

As far as I know James the line was cut because the episode was being shown pre-Watershed (7.30pm on a Sunday). It's not a "permanent" cut AFAIK.

Censorship is a bad idea though - I think it should have been broadcast post-9pm with the line intact.

Looking foward to the "revised" editions of Till Death Us Do Part!

True re the 7.30 broadcast but I'd much prefer to see a warning at the start of the programme saying "Adult content following. Viewer discretion advised."

As time goes on we seem to becoming more and more PC so what's to stop even more edits to shows from a bygone era?

Next it'll be Mrs Slocombe's pussy being given a trim.

BBC left wing (your opinion matters not) organisation strikes again, 'bout time it was dismantled, just a mouthpiece for liebour party.

Over here in Canada we get a lot of USA channels and almost every program has a warning. Some channels also mute some of the swear words and also go further  by muting religious cursing. On the other hand we can have channels showing graphic violence, horror and sex mid morning and afternoon. 

Tim

Remember 'Love Thy Neighbour'? I saw a programme a few years ago discussing why this programme would never be repeated even though it was produced to highlight and promote racial integration. The reason for not repeating the series was because of regular use of the 'n' word and others not considered PC now even though the bigoted  character was always shown to be foolish in the same way as Alf Garnett. It was funny at the time but would probably seem very dated now.

Check out 'Django Unchained' (rated '18') for all and sundry having great fun with the 'N' word. Another corker from Tarantino, who in no way would wish to cause racist offence. Samuel L. Jackson is as magnificent as usual, but Christoph Waltz takes the acting honours for me.

John.

IIRC, a recent version of "The Dambusters" has been modified such that references to Guy Gibson's dog, now called Digger, are no longer historically accurate.

Before long somebody will want us believe the Enigna code was cracked by the Americans.........

Cheers

Don

Yes, I remember the Dam Busters one, Don.  This  completely unnecessary editing of the black Labrador's name used to provoke quite a rant from my since departed dad who was a big fan of these sorts of films.

MDS 

To be honest times move on. Political correctness is something that can be most annoying, but why not simply bleep out the words. This shows disdain for them, which is correct, and for those with memories long enough, should merely cause a wry internal smile. Censorship is as old as the hills, and at different times many great texts have been Bowdlerised. Google, "Thomas Bowdler," ...

Whilst many things used to be accepted as normal, time and cultural evolution can render such things as no longer acceptable. As GB Shaw observed when asked what he thought of Civilisation, that it would be a good idea if someone would invent it ...

Well we continue to strive to implement a sort of Utopian ideal, and if a bit of Political Correctness along the way is required to approach the goal, then I am all for it. And I am a small "c" conservative to say the least.

I live next to an old couple who had a black Spaniel, which quite un-self-consciously was called W**! I don't think this would be a very acceptable name for day forty years on.

ATB from George

Society moves on, thankfully there are now many things which are unacceptable which were seen as ok at the time. And if that means we need a little editing then so be it.

Just as Jimmy Savile's behaviour was accepted as normal forty years ago, and thanks be that his sort of behaviour is no longer accepted as being normally acceptable ...

ATB from George

God help us. We're now comparing child abuse to a couple of comments written by John Cleese to illustrate how attitudes had changed over the years.

Savile's behaviour was never accepted as normal. It was covered up and ignored by the powers that be.

Surely it is time to move on from both?

Many are not bright enough to see the parody, and gradually removing such material from general view is a very good hing in my view.

What does worry me a bit is the violence of computer games from which the copycat phenomenon may produce horrendous behaviour patterns in future times ... Time to regulate the content of computer games by now perhaps, just as theatre goers had their plays Bowdlerised in the past ...

ATB from George

So we should start rewriting history so it doesn't offend some of our minority present day politically correct sensibilities? Where would you stop? Have you read any Dickens? Shakespeare? Burns? Scott? Mark Twain? And so on.

That's utterly preposterous. A complete load of shyte to be honest.

Hopefully nobody wants to censor history.  Isn't that how we are supposed to learn where we are headed?  But I think TV is a different situation.  Think of the message racist remarks could send to young people, especially those not old enough to evaluate the context.  At the least, it should be shown late, once the impressionable youngsters are in bed, or parents are home with them.

I agree with the sentiments underneath this, as once you start editing tested to the supposed 'standards of society' (whoever rationalises these and how they themselves are moderated), there could be no end.

In my eyes, on TV, there are far more questionable standards exhibited via the gratuitous profanities of some supposed comedians and the level of exploitation of parties on the likes of Kyle/Springer etc.

Next they'll be cutting Manuel out of FT, due to the anti-Spanish angle and exploitation of those who struggle with the Engleesh language.

My view is that some censorship of material in a civilised society is appropriate, for example pornographic or otherwise grossly offensive or indecent material. However I do not agree with the censorship of 'ordinary' TV programs of films transmitted on TV. Obviously children need to be protected from anything that would be inappropriate for them to view, but this has traditionally taken care of by transmission post 9.00pm. After this it is accepted that some transmissions may contain material that some people may find offensive/disturbing, and it is then the responsibility of parents to limit what their children are allowed to view.

For adults the solution is very simple. If you do not like what you are viewing then turn off the TV set. No problem at all. It is not compulsory to watch anything on TV.

If the episode of Fawlty Towers was shown before 9.00pm then my feeling is that the BBC was correct in its decision to remove the offending dialogue, as it sends out the wrong message to children. The line should be left in tact if transmitted after 9.00pm IMO. Certainly on the DVD of the series that I have it is in tact. It is highly amusing in my view, not because of its clearly racist undertones, but exactly because it is so politically incorrect today. It is a dreadful 'faux par' on the part of the major. In today's society, someone making such comments would be seen as a highly offensive person if it occurred in real life. In the context of a comedy program I find it amusing rather than offensive as it reflects only on the major and highlights what an out-of-touch old duffer he is and still living in the days of the 'British Empire'.

I am a fan of 1970's British TV series in general, and it is fascinating how series like 'The Professionals' and 'The Sweeney' are riddled with politically incorrect dialogue and attitudes. At their original transmission dates this was obviously seen as being perfectly OK, but it highlights how much attitudes have changed in society over the past thirty plus years. There was in fact one episode of 'The Professionals', dealing with the Ku Klux Klan, which was banned on British TV and has never been transmitted here, though it was transmitted overseas. It is available on DVD, and I have to say that after viewing it I can't quite understand the logic of banning it. It depicts the highly racist attitudes, but certainly does not condone them in any way at all, and the people with those attitudes are shown to be utterly despicable, hateful and bigotted thugs with no redeeming qualities at all.

Viewing many 1950's and 1960's British films is also highly instructive on the way that society has changed over the years. I can see no justification for editing the dog's name in 'The Dambusters'. This is not so much straight-forward censorship but rather smacks of political manipulation, and is really quite disturbing.

Peter

I would like more censorship, but not of Fawlty Towers, instead that could drop BBC3 and Channel 4, as the standard of programmes on these is just rock bottom ... I think the BBC has more airspace than programmes worth showing ... ITV only has FA cup football, not much else ... 

It is unfortunate to have to edit a programme like FT when there is so much tripe about .... Far too much violence and why do history programmes go on and on about the war, whoops don't mention the war, i mentioned it once, but i think i got away with it ... 

When i was a nipper there were lots of great films made .. Carry on at your convenience, i married a monster from out of space, the film version of are you being served ... Why don't they make 'em like that any more ... All we ever get is gratuitous violence and people being thoroughly unpleasant ..

So bring back Mary Whitehouse ... I particularly liked her Experience programme.  

I think that some people on this thread have missed to the point.

Yes, society or culture "moves on" but the past doesn't. To attempt to change or deny the past is fundamentally, morally, wrong. To change the past (particularly to suit contemporary sensibility or to save the squeamish) is in effect an attempt to deny that it happened. And to deny the past is to deny ourselves a future. Because we eventually end up with thousands of Winston Smiths beavering away in MoTs writing and rewriting history. Without a strong sense of historical narrative, we lose our sense of ourselves and we are, to put it bluntly, completely screwed.

Tampering with cultural artefacts, whether works of art or old TV shows, is the start of that very slippery slope.

Let me give you a few examples. The first great epic American film, DW Grifffth's The Birth of a Nation of 1914, is almost completely unwatchable today. It is a staggering technical achievement and a priceless cultural-historical document but it is also (not entirely, but certainly in its second half) a vile and racist film in which the KKK are portrayed as a noble organisation which rescues virtuous white damsels from the lecherous advances of drunken negroes (played, incidentally, by white actors in blackface).

Take also The Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefestahl's documentary of the 1934 Nazi congress. It is sometimes tedious but is undoubtedly an extremely powerful and impressive piece of film-making and is, like Griffith's film, an important (if flawed) work of art. Neither should be destroyed, or re-edited to suit modern tastes. As adults we can make informed decisions as to whether we want to see them or not. If we choose to to view them that is fine but we have no right to deny other adults that same decision.

Hell, the same also applies to the two most notorious Nazi films, Jud Suss and Der Ewige Jude, both of which are rank and disgusting anti-Semitic propaganda and not worth watching except as curiosities.

But, worthless or problematical as these four films are, there is no justification for me (or anyone else) trying to stop anyone else seeing them and judging for themselves.

After all what could be more Nazi, more totalitarian, than stopping an adult watching a Nazi propaganda film?!

If my post seems rather prolix and heavy handed - after all, it is "only" one word being taken out of an old BBC sitcom - then I apologise.

George's suggestion of "bleeping out" "offending" words is a reasonable compromise, but it infantilises us - a bit like the ****ing stupid system that works on this forum. Really, the programme should have been left untouched and broadcast either at a later time or with a warning.

There is only one answer: SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP.

Dear Kevin,

I don't think bleeping a few offensive words out of a family time broadcast amounts to re-writing history!

The original uncut version is there on DVD for anyone curious minded to study. In reality it might be good to put a little announcement at the beginning of any censored old piece like Faulty Towers explaining that it has been re-edited so as to conform to current acceptable standards.

What would be worrying and is not the case, would be to pretend that the editing had never happened, even if it had.

ATB from George

George, I didn't say that bleeping amounted to a rewriting history.

What I said was that it was infantilising. Which it is.

Well said Kevin.

The past is a foreign country which can only be viewed in hindsight. Censorship will not change history or the attitudes of the period.

Graham

But if the broadcast is made at a time when infants watch, then infantilise away I say!

If it were broadcast after the watershed, then leave it adult. At least the adults often lived through the times, and can [often, though not always] contextualise the non-PC aspects, whereas the infants do not have this perspective.

ATB from George

That is a point I made some way back in this thread George. It shouldn't have been broadcast at that time.