STEPHEN FRY

I agree. Goodness knows how many years it is since I saw that film but the moment when the dog's lead is dropped into the wastepaper basket has stayed with me ever since. Changing the dog's name would feel like a betrayal of the dog.

Nigger was also the code word for the successful breaching of the dams. I agree it's an unenviable position but I think if the word is taken in the context of the film it should be allowed. Comedians like Chris Rock use the word ...the word has been uttered in many films ...Mississippi Burning for example but it's contextual.

It is so stupid, so uncreative, and so sad that people have become afraid of words.

Pardon if this sounds in any way self-referential, but a friend of mine went through this bullshit not long ago. He was commissioned to do some historical paintings. Now, the patrons did not direct his art nor have any designs pre-arranged, except that it reflect an aspect of farming. If they had, he might've told them to find someone else.

So, he went about the work of completing several paintings that reflected the area and the work and the people who did the work. He then sent them.

Almost immediately, several were sent back with a letter that was clearly influenced by the legal eagles. It requested that some of the workers be 'edited out' for fear of offending the black community.

This was a perplexing example of the too often hypocritical liberal. The ones who insist they are in favor of freedom of speech and unrestrained, uncensored artistic expression. Ah, yes. Except when it comes to facts that is. Let's just edit out the Ugly Facts. Or, better, pretend they never existed. We'll just write something else in.

Not to mention how much of an offense this is to the intelligence of the black community. The assumption is that they are stupid little children in need of protecting from an aspect of Life they are, ironically enough, quite familiar with. It pats them on the head, metaphorically, and says,"There, there. Don't you worry now. Your big white uncles will protect you." It's kind of disgusting frankly.

Sorry mbh. Welcome to the neo-Left Rules and Regulations.

People want to get films made. They need money. The people with money look out for their own interests and that means having lawyers on hand. They want the widest audience and distribution possible. They imagine Mr.Fry and Mr.Jackson in interviews having to explain and/or defend a historical fact. I have no problem believing that history has been edited to get funding and distribution. None.

BTW, I'm not defending his agreeing to alter the facts. At all. Am I surprised by it? No. Do I wish artists would rather put on a great show with a torn shower curtain than a mediocre one with CGI? Yes.

I think sometimes around the 80's artists lost their balls to Corporate Castigation. Even the SAG is a shadow of what it once was.

I'd rather the facts weren't altered either. I think it undermines the credibility of the film before it's even been released. Maybe others hope that the debate for it's exclusion will be free marketing and is a safer alternative than having put forth the History as it was. I dunno...that sounds really cynical of me though and I hate thinking like that. I won't go see it though because I know it's already a done deal for me.

Hey, that's great there's a historian contributing to the conversation! I'm more of a wanna-be historian.

Facts are facts ladies and gents. It's a fact, for example, that women were and still are treated horribly in society. It's a fact there was a time men told the women in their lives, once they got the vote, HOW to vote. That the suffragettes endured a great deal of ugliness. If we tell their story, do we edit out the facts of their abusive treatment by men? Do we edit out that they were called bitches, whores, etc etc simply because they wanted equal treatment?

History has ugly facts because human beings can behave in an ugly way.

I think it's very childish thinking to altar history. It's willful ignorance simply because some facts are painful. I don't like looking at some of it either, but it was what it was and it is what it is.

My disappointment is sincere.

'Politically Correct' was, ironically enough, not a term coined by the Left, but the neo-con Right.

This story is an element of History. And you're altering History, but only superfically because it doesn't really altar it at all. So, what's the point in doing it? If it's no matter, then why change it? It's futility and if we're going to use the illogical argument that the dog's name is trivial, then the dog himself is trival. Why not excise the dog as well? Or turn him into a goat named 'Billy'?

If it's so insignificant, go crazy!! Make all the soldiers giraffes and the war no war at all. Hell, why do a movie about the dambusters? Do one about giraffes that eat cigarettes instead No accurate History necessary.

First of all, please be careful about mentioning 'serving honorably in the military'.

I'm a decorated vet of a foreign war, thank you. I know something about serving honorably, and did.

Secondly, I believe you're missing the point of the posts above *in the CONTEXT*. It's about altering history simply because it now offends people.

Also, I have black people in my family. They're well aware of history and also what it means for them today. None of them are so bereft of awareness that they either would altar the history of WORDS or ideas or things done.

The codeword and the dogs name were, and I'll put it this way for you, the 'N' word. That's it. You're reacting emotionally to a fact because you don't like that it was used. But it WAS used.

To suggest that people wish History to be recounted *as it was* because they have some unconscious, or conscious, desire to 'oppress' others is insulting frankly. You're suggesting something about my motivation, and something not very nice, and anyone else who disagrees with altaring FACTS.

I don't think it's myself or any of the other posters who needs a hug. And that kind of patronizing, condescending question is totally unecessary and adds nothing to this discussion.

I'd rather not stick my head in the sand just because the view gets rocky sometimes, thanks anyway.

I started this post because I disagreed with the name change. One could have written the dog out altogether if it was going to be that controversial but the code word for the dam breach is Nigger!

Sorry Stephen ...bad call I'm afraid. I doubt whether I will go to see the film now. Besides I honestly doubt whether the original will be bettered.

Yes Corporal ..what is it?
It's your dog sir ...he's a racist sir!