Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Crying Foul with the Tongue (Essay by Bob Racine)


Most of us growing up were taught or at least encouraged not to “cuss”, a more raw form of the word “curse”.  Our parents did not like it when we used what has been referred to as foul language, unless one or the other or both parents were in the habit of doing the same.  Great pains have been taken during the course of civilization (at least western civilization) to shield the kiddies’ ears from exposure to such language as the barons of society deemed harmful in the shaping of their character. 

Not until the 1960s did we start hearing “God damn” on the soundtracks of American movies.  It was some years later during the following decade that the F word and “shit” began popping up and joining the movie vernacular.  We had something called the Hays Office and the various state boards of censors that listened to those soundtracks with a scrupulous ear.  Whether any of them ever took into consideration the fact that even the most well brought up kids were daily exposed to cussing on the school grounds or on the playing fields is difficult to determine.  By the time the kids started on a regular diet of motion pictures the exposure had already taken place.  (Currently certain words are still being bleeped out of news broadcasts and even some dramatic shows so that those delicate little ears miss out on them.)

Are those restraints really missed?  Well, let us consider the query.

I know that I often find myself using “damn” or “hell” when I am at home and for the most part alone, mostly in reference to some inanimate object that is not obeying my instructions properly and causing me delay or frustration.   I even sometimes cuss out people who have “gotten my goat”, but not so that they can hear me.  It is more a conversation I have with myself.  “Four letter words” we have come to call them, which in a way is misleading, because “love” is itself a four letter term as are “kind” and “meek”.     

We of course as a society have done tricks with foul expressions to make them seem less foul.  Goddamn-it has been disguised as dog-gone-it.  You see, dog is God spelled backward, and gone-it is another way of wishing for somebody or something to be banished.  We want God to “gone it”, that is, send it to – well, maybe not literally hell.  Few of us have any clear idea what a literal hell would look like anyhow.  But at the very least we want something that is annoying or confounding us to be cleared out of our space, to be removed from our path.  Send it away from me, not to be seen or encountered anymore. 

Or sometimes we settle simply for the lone word “damn” as a substitute, a shortened, abbreviated form of the whole mouthful.  We just assume that when we “damn” something we are counting on powers beyond our own control to do the dispatching.  God is the silent participant, maybe the elephant in the room.  We have even softened the edge of this word by itself; we have traded it in for “dern”. 

Oaths, as they were called in the ancient world, were always thought to involve wishing harm to come to someone or something else.  If you cursed you were releasing the fury of heaven upon human mortals.  An individual had it in her or his power to literally place a curse, in some cases carelessly, upon their worst enemies.  And in so doing they were supposed to place it upon themselves as well.  A kind of black magic!  In the movie “Gone with the Wind” Scarlett O’Hara is seeing Ashley Wilkes back to the battlefront, when he begins talking in pessimistic terms about the outcome of the war, and she upbraids him about talking that way and tells him anxiously “Say a prayer quick!”  Erase the spell quickly before God (or the Devil) has time to act on your wish, as if the man has really wished for it! 

Traditionally held to be the worst form of profanity is the utterance of words that defame deity.  The Decalogue is explicit in its condemnation of language that takes “the name of the Lord thy God in vain”. We are enjoined not to speak of anything or anyone deserving of respect in a loose or defamatory manner.  And especially is this supposed to apply to the name of deity or to anything deemed sacred.  To profane that name or things that are considered holy is to speak of them with contempt, or with disregard for their holiness. 

Another term for this is blasphemy.  Jesus among other things was accused of it when he seemed to be rewriting the Judaic Law.  “The Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath.”  He was considered a blasphemer just by the fact that he healed on the Sabbath.  He offended the Sanhedrin’s sense of propriety and seemed to be claiming for himself the power and privilege that belonged only to the Almighty.  Once I heard a very misguided fellow minister report that he had been spending time listening to words uttered on TV commercials and serving as a one-man censor board.  He wrote to the network complaining about the “blasphemous” use of the term “holy cow” on one occasion.  His action was frowned upon and ridiculed by his fellow clergy (including me), but the fact remains that at one time in our Christian history the understanding of blasphemy was carried to just such a ridiculous length.  I have never been quite sure what in this man’s view was being blasphemed, the cow or the God who created the animals of the field.  It can get quite confusing.  Was deity being ascribed to the animal?    

You would be hard pressed today to find devout souls who are rabid about offending the ear of the unseen God.  Many who are sensitive to the use of verbal profanity oppose its use more on the grounds of what is inappropriate or disrespectful, not strict religious taboo.  It should be apparent to all moderns by now that four letter utterances that are meant in a crude or unkind or flagrant way are really a means of releasing frustration or to holler about the frustration.  They express anger; they do not amount to condemnation.  “Damn” is a manner of saying “I can do without this” or “I can’t believe this happened or that I heard that or that such an occurrence is possible”.  But it gets really risky when it is directed at individuals.  In such a case you might not be cursing another person’s soul, but after enough of it you might be cursing the space between you and the intended other.  You may be sewing the seeds of acrimony or creating an abiding hatred.  You can poison the air between you and the other person or persons.  The language becomes divisive, lays the groundwork for alienation or scorn or outright enmity.

We have all probably met persons whose lives have been so oppressive, due to deplorable circumstances in which they grew up or by choices or failures or the plague of associations with evil company that their entire outlook on life is poisoned, and it shows up with an almost endless flurry of expletives that fill the air they sit or stand or walk in.  The words fall like confetti all around them, except they are not let loose to celebrate anything.  For them it has become a blighting habit.  So pitiful!  So sad and heartbreaking!  The only one they have cursed it seems is themselves.

Have you ever noticed that in movies that have their setting in ancient times, there is no attempt made to simulate profane speech?  How could there be?  The fact is that we do not know exactly what a cuss word in ancient Latin or Greek sounded like.  To hear English words like “damn” or “shit” or “hell” or the F word spewing out of the mouth of Julius Caesar or Mark Anthony or even one of Jesus’ disciples would seem quite bizarre and anachronistic.  To say the least, it would be laughable!  There was a motion picture version of Lloyd C. Douglas’ book “The Big Fisherman” that put in a very brief appearance back in the late 1950s, a tale about Simon Peter and his struggle to come to terms with the advent of the man Jesus Christ.  Peter was portrayed as a rough cut individual who was acquainted with lowlife ways and did not know what to make of this strange man who taught forgiveness and kindness and humility.  It was not a very well written work, and it is not surprising that it never really caught on with the public.  But there was one exceptional scene in it I shall never forget. 

Peter comes up against two ruffians who make fun of his new attachment to the carpenter’s son and decide to test his new faith.  First of all they slap him in the face.  Peter feeling the urge to fight back mutters “Deliver me from temptation”.   A second time one of them slaps him he repeats the prayer a little more earnestly, “Deliver me from temptation”, and yet a third time he is struck and repeats the words obviously very riled up and gritting his teeth to keep from yielding.  Suddenly one of them socks him on the jaw and he goes sprawling to the ground.  That pushes him over the edge and as he rises to his feet he changes his prayer to “Forgive us our trespasses” and knocks both of his enemies down in one swing.  They scamper away and do not bother him anymore.  At once he is seized with self-disgust and cries out “You’d better give up on me, God.  I’m not your type.”  But in a few moments he is begging God not to give up on him.  He falls into a sobbing heap on the floor of his fishing boat where he remains until he hears Jesus calling him to follow.  A very touching moment!  No ugly words necessary!  What a shame that the rest of the splashy spectacle was so asinine and nauseously contrived.  It has predictably disappeared from the repertoire.    

If a scene like that were set in modern times, a new convert butting heads with hoodlums on the street perhaps, we can be pretty certain that we would hear some cussing in our own language, the man cussing first at his attackers and then at himself for having such a tough time putting his new faith into practice.  How would we depict that profanity in a Biblical setting?  Interesting question!   

Recently I saw and reviewed that short series “One Day at a Time” and I was impressed by how much strong emotion, even near volcanic emotion, was put across, especially by the mother, without weakening the fiber of that continuing tale by any profusion of cussing.  Yes, a word or two sneaks in but never did the writers perform as if the gutsiness of it depended upon a full outlay of gross terminology. 

Where are we now regarding the use of what is sometimes called “colorful” language in dramatizations, especially in motion pictures?  Has someone torn open a Pandora’s Box?  Is it “anything goes” now in contrast to where we were a century ago?  I suppose so!  But have we made so much of it tiresome on the ear?  How much does the impact of human personalities portrayed on the screen depend upon dropping or scattering these ugly terms of human conversation into the script?

It all depends upon the kind of people you are setting out to portray.  If one is dealing in something lurid or violent, explicit or not, it seems more authentic not to impose any kind of strict ban on salty language that people watching would expect to hear.  But I have seen movies in recent years in which the F word was heard far more than seems believable.  Go into any dive or men’s locker room or even into any prison ward and how much in the space of an hour would you hear it?  It is heard, yes, and frequently, but not with every other breath that is taken.  If it cannot add force where it is needed, if it becomes a kind of tic or verbal spasm, a kind of show and blow, a pointless monotony, does it really serve the purpose of good dramatic art any more so than those taboos of yore?  I would say not. 

                                       
To read other entries in my blog, please consult its website:  enspiritus.blogspot.com.  To know about me, consult the autobiographical entry on the website for Dec. 5, 2016.

No comments:

Post a Comment