Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sexy Beast is maybe Ray Winstone's finest moments but on re-watching it was surprised at the amount of swearing. I was probably just struck by the quality of the acting and scenery the first time, and the language does help define Ben Kingsley's nasty character.


I'm a fan of Jason Solomon's reviews but he hates the 'Gentleman' - Guy Richie's London gangster/geezer film which is getting fairly decent (sub Lock Stock) reviews, for it's language. http://www.jasonsolomons.com/the-gentlemen-movie-review/?LMCL=LHvF65


Have you seen the film/s? Views about liberal use of profanities? (or certain profanities?)

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/245927-swearing-in-movies/
Share on other sites

There was a actor who performed the Vagina Monologue in the West End who used the term on Breakfast TV, in a positive feminist ownership manor - I recall a clip and the presenters saying "that's not a word we normally use..." Not sure if this article refers to this https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/mar/11/broadcasting2 It drew a few complaints but if you saw it objectively not so (and quite amusing due to the reaction of the presenters)


There is a general point about men's bits generally being 'funny' (dick, willy, John Thomas) and lady's being used in a derogatory way (I've never used pussy as a swear word, more of a Mrs Slocombe sitcom double entendre)

I love swearing but it needs its place and value. My problem with the C word is that I love Cs but the word itself is pretty ugly - even the sound of it. It's not a nice sound like "pearl" or "curl" or "girl" - they all have to be delivered slowly and gently. C... rhymes with other .unt words and that's s shame. A rather base sound. It's usually used with a negative attachment. Ladies' parts are much better than this!


Not a Sexy Beast fan but "Scum" is a superb film - great actors and wholly institutionalising script to hammer the point. Hardly a romantic evening in though. "Nil by Mouth" is equally brilliant and harrowing for similar reasons.

SpringTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What would a Quentin Tarantino film be without

> a

> > bit of swearing (and violence too)

>

>

> It would probably have more value.



More value in what way?


Quentin Tarantino lite just wouldn't be the same (not that I've seen any of his later movies)

SpringTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I love swearing .....


Love it. Are you Rude Kid in Viz? As was the mag as a whole, this highly amusing at the start but then it just became formulaic and had to get more and more gratuitous


In case you are not familar: http://viz.co.uk/category/rude-kid/


warning - it's a bit rude/puerile

My wife loves the C word too - doesn't use it much so the value's there. Regarding Viz, have to say Malumbu, it's currently better than it's ever been! PS you're thinking of Maureen Lipman with the Vagina Monologues.


Sue, those films would still be decent without the graphic violence and blue language. The power often lies in suggestion rather than full exposure, right?!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • With slightly less respect  I have  watched the 1 hour video - he said what he said and he did what he did. And his faux-wink wink “no violence people” fools no one but fools. Are you a fool?    the bbc told the truth - and it’s a straight up lie to say otherwise. Did they wdit and cut to the chase to make a point? Absolutely  and correctly  he was not edited to say things he didn’t say 
    • Friends and family in the 'States always say how wonderful it is to be in Britain and see our news coverage.  It's all partisan out there. The BBC manages to simultaneously p off the left and the right so must be doing something right.
    • From the BBC: "The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement." What is wrong is editing someone to make him say something they didn't.  With respect Sephiroth, this is something I know a bit about and I have encountered, over the last decade, people in programming editing contributors to make them say things they didn't, the end point being to hang them out to dry. It's happening more and more and it's my job to make sure that people on TV are not mis-represented, but shown in their true light so that viewers can make up their own minds. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes and how hard some us fight to keep things impartial.  It's also worth mentioning that I have personally lost work because of Trump suing US networks, and that's one of the lesser reasons why I'd like to see him gone.  But broadcasters have a moral obligation to tell the truth and that's the hill that most decent professionals in the industry are willing to die on. Otherwise, how can the viewing public trust anything that's beamed into their living rooms? 
    • Amazing work from Leon, doing out electrical survey and replacing our consumer board. Great communications, tidy work, reliable friendly and reasonably priced. A pleasure to have around and highly recommended. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...