Dirty Talk
As any writer should know, one of the most important elements of writing is to grab the reader's interest right from the start, so that they can't even entertain the thought of not continuing reading. I've played around with various ways of starting off this month's column, and none of them has worked worth a damn. I've had a hell of a time just getting started, and everything I've tried has been complete crap. It's made me feel like an ass, and I'm getting really pissed. I'd even thought of forgoing the column this month altogether, but then DJ would probably think I was a complete asshole.
Well, that's it. In that last paragraph, I used all the currently sanctioned "dirty words" that are permitted to be used on American television. Oh sure, you may hear the occasional "tits" or (curiously) "turd," but those words hardly qualify as profanity. They're just plain goofy. The list has expanded a lot over the past few years, but it's still one mighty tame list. Periodically the list adds another, and it's beginning to look as though the networks may finally be realizing that indeed mature adults do watch some tv programs, and that maybe it wouldn't necessarily be such a bad idea to acknowledge that. But there are some curious rules and exceptions that merit some deeper delving. I don't see this being written about anywhere else (at least not the way I'm writing about it), so I'm going to dive right in. You've been warned.
What I consider to be a genuine breakthrough moment in American television, with respect to addressing how real people talk every day of their real lives, occurred on the second-to-last episode of this season for NBC's ER. It was a very strong episode, and a beautiful performance by Anthony Edwards. His character, Dr. Mark Green, was in the terminal stages of brain cancer. His right eye didn't function anymore, and he was rapidly losing all mobility. Having taken his wife and daughters to Hawaii with him, he awoke one day to beautiful sunlight pouring in through the windows of his room. He attempted to get out of bed and nearly made it, but then fell to the floor. He pounded the floor with his fist and cried "SHIT!" It was far from the most important thing in the show dramatically, but I nonetheless was certain that I felt the floor tremble under my chair as I watched. "Shit" is one of those words that you just don't hear on American television.
NYPD Blue has, of course, been the show that has broken the most ground for real-life language in a television drama as far as I know. That first season that they were on the air, it was almost as though they were intoxicated with their newfound ability to use the word "asshole." In some of the conversations that first year, it seemed as though about every fifth word was "asshole." They calmed down a bit after that, but they've fought hard for every single word that the network censors will let them get away with. The thinking goes that if you're going to do a gritty, realistic police drama taking place on some very, very mean New York streets, you ought to at least be able to approximate the way real cops talk. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time picturing Andy Sipowicz saying to some guy in the interrogation room "Gosh darn it, you jerk, I'm getting really mad at you." Andy would only say "Damn it, you creepy asshole, you're PISSIN' ME OFF!!" Lately, "dick" and "pussy" have been turning up, too, but the rule seems to be that "asshole," "dick" and "pussy" are only to be used as derogatory terms. In other words, it's okay to CALL someone "asshole," "dick" or "pussy," but you can't talk about seeing (or doing anything with, inside, or in the vicinity of) someone's asshole, dick or pussy.
Maybe they'll have the same good fortune as "piss" has enjoyed, though.
Sometime over the last thirty or forty years, the term "pissed off" has wondered into public parlance as meaning "really, really angry." I have no idea how this term originated, and if you think about it, it really is an awfully strange thing to say. Over the last dozen or so years, it has crept into tv dialogue, to the point where now even the sitcoms are allowed to use it. (In case you haven't noticed, sitcoms are usually the last type of show to get "permission" to use "dirty words." In the past, comedies like All in the Family broke new ground in language. Now I suppose the thinking might be that before you can be allowed to have fun with these words, you must first treat them with grave seriousness.) Anyhow, "pissed off" has now become so commonly used that we have begun to hear characters on television shows talk about "pissing," and to actually mean the act of urination when they say it. Progress comes painfully slow sometimes in our Puritan-founded country.
Reasonably astute readers probably know by now that I work at a tv station that is an NBC affiliate, and I'm a little proud that The Peacock had helped expand those boundaries a bit. The most eye-opening instance was when NBC showed Stephen Spielberg's Schindler's List uncut. I was working the night the film aired, and I have to admit that I was surprised. It felt a little strange to look up at an air monitor in the station and see nudity, but what really surprised me was hearing the word "fuck" go out over the air. That simply is a word that one never in one's wildest dreams imagines hearing on American television. But in the context of an extremely moving and important film, it was allowed to air.
The job of Network Censor has to be one of the most capricious occupations that a human can have. A term that is unthinkable on television one season can be ubiquitous two years later. But why do the networks even employ censors?
I was taught in my Broadcasting classes that there is no law prohibiting broadcasters from airing any profanity, even though most people seem to think that there is. The only reason that network censors exist is to make sure that people will not complain about a television program. The most complaints, or at least the ones that seem to carry the most weight, are the ones about "immoral" language or behavior on programs. Why don't networks want these complaints? As is nearly always the case, the answer is (now recite along with me, class) MONEY!
How does censorship prevent loss of money? Well, you're probably way ahead of me now, but it usually goes something like "I will tell my congregation to tell all of their friends to tell all of their friends to write to the foul sinners who would sponsor such an abomination, and to tell those evil purveyors that we will never purchase another product made by them or any of their subsidiaries for the rest of their lives, and for them to counsel their children as well to do the same, should there be anything left of their companies by the time those children reach maturity!" Nothing gets a line of dialogue changed faster than a sponsor in fear of retribution from the righteously indignant.
The thing that amazes me the most is that networks, sponsors, and our good old buddies the FCC are lightning-quick to respond to a smattering of complaints from all the self-appointed morality watchdogs in this country, but time and time again concerted letter-writing campaigns from thousands and in some instances millions of viewers will do nothing to save a show that a network wishes to cancel due to low ratings. Even shows with low ratings are reaching millions of viewers nationally. But no one at the networks ever seems to get it that not every show in every time slot can be the top-rated show, even though it is painfully obvious to you and me.
I know lots of people, and just about all of them, even some of the ones who are deeply religious, use profanity in their everyday lives. Sadly though, there are some people who derive meaning in their lives from looking for as many ways as possible to be offended. You might want to say to these people, "If this offends you, then watch something else." Perfectly sane advice. Try to get someone at a television station or network to say that, though, and you'll be sadly disappointed. The last thing in the world that a broadcaster would do is tell someone to watch the offerings of another broadcaster. They'd rather sell their mothers into slavery than risk losing the righteous indignation demographic.
I think it's a genuine shame that there isn't more programming on television that reflects the way you and I and just about everyone that we know speak in our lives every day. I don't mean that Big Bird has to go over to Oscar the Grouch and call him a motherfucker. What I mean is that in an attempt to portray real people living real lives, it's kind of counter productive to not let them speak in a realistic manner.
And now an updateThere's new information to add to last month's diatribe on the runaway technology and the FCC.
First, some folks at Sony must have had the same thoughts that I had. I hypothesized that in the competition between Sony's Super Audio CD and DVD Audio, that DVD Audio might win the day because the DVD Audio player would also play video DVD's. Well, just a few weeks ago in the Sunday paper flier from that big chain of electronics stores, I saw a Sony SACD player advertised that also plays DVD's. So maybe the folks at Sony did learn something from the Betamax Debacle.
Second, those lucky bums at the FCC punted yet another one. Heads deeply in the sand, they have mandated that all digital tv's sold in the US be equipped with a digital tuner capable of receiving over-the-air digital broadcasts, ignoring the fact that the already-small percentage of people in this country who receive television over the air is continually shrinking. By the time you or I get around to buying a digital tv, everything we'll want to watch, including our local stations, will be available in a digital form from either cable or satellite providers. This puts a complicated, not to mention expensive, piece of equipment in every television, a piece of equipment that the vast majority of us will never use. Will someone please give these people a nudge, and see if they're awake?
(C) 2002 - Karl Cable