Guns or B*itches

I was watching TV today and stumbled across Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," a movie that I've probably seen a dozen or so times, on the A&E network. In one scene Jack's talking to the poltergeist bartender about how he broke Danny's collarbone once due to a "momentary lapse of muscular coordination." At one point Jack calls Danny a "son of a bitch"--at least in the uncut version. However, in the edited, A&E version, Jack calls Danny a "son of a gun."

"Really?" I thought. This is the same movie in which waves of blood flood the elevators and halls of the hotel, Jack makes out with an old woman whose flesh is rotting off her bones, Jack puts an axe head in a man's spine, and so on, and so on. I got to thinking--there's something a little ironic about the standards the FCC has created for editing mature content. Now, it's not that I necessarily want to hear the phrase "son of a bitch" in it's unadulterated form while I'm watching movies about maniacal axe murderers; it's just that I think it's odd that someone, a person who's job it is to decide these types of things, looked at "The Shining" and said, "Tuxedoed man fellating and man in a bear costume: OK. But 'bitch' has got to go."

I spent quite a bit of time with my nephews over the holidays, and there are definitely certain things on TV that I'd rather they not see. Would I think it's OK for my 4- and 6-year-old nephews to watch "The Shining" since the word "bitch" was edited out of the movie? Absolutely not. But that's not really the point. The point is that somebody at A&E went to their editing man and said, "Johnson, we've got to get this picture ready to air on television, OK?" So Johnson goes to work, edits out "bitch," makes a handful of other changes, and takes the reel back to his supervisor. The supervisor watches the edited version, sees the blood, sees the disturbing sex acts, sees that "bitch" has been edited out and says, "Fine work, Johnson!" Something just seems off with that.

I'm not arguing that everything aired on TV should be completely unedited. Well, maybe I am. The reality is that everyday life is crude and shocking and inappropriate at times. And the good and decent and kind and caring are the ones who are tasked with dealing with the difficulties of life. Namely, I'm talking about parents. I had the misfortune of being revolted by an example of what I would call bad parenting recently. (No one in my family, thank the Maker.) By the time I heard, "Get your ass off the stairs!" yelled at a 2-year-old for the tenth time, I was thinking, "That poor kid's going to have problems when he grows up." (But at least he won't hear "bitch" in "The Shining"!)

The other issue is: Have you seen what's on TV these days? (Here is where I slip into my Andy Rooney impersonation.) Pretty much everyone I know has been deploring the likes of "The Real World" and "The Hills" and whatnot for quite a while. I understand that these shows are guilty pleasures, and I certainly have my fair share of guilty pleasures. But, seriously, every time I happen across VH1 or MTV any more, there's some ridiculous show on that has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Whatsoever! The premise of all these shows seems to be "Let's cram the most vapid, superficial people we can find into a house and make them compete in demeaning, embarrassing contests to win a prize that no person in their right mind should ever want to win!" Am I right or am I right?

But back to the original point: Flip through the channels any given day and you're bound to see a couple people being blown away with Uzis, maybe a stabbing, a decapitation if you're lucky. But really, what's more damaging and disturbing to the psyche of a child? A curse word, or a homicide? I would argue the latter. And how about a murder or a nipple? In that case, I would argue the former. You can see 50 men get hosed down with a Gattling gun, but a nipple? That's unacceptable! We all have them! I have them. You have them. Elaine Benes and Jerry Seinfeld and Kramer have them. So what's the big deal? Call me what you will, but I've never been offended by a nipple. And it's not the breast that's the issue. It really is the nipple. I know this because I saw "The Graduate" on the other day, and they showed the go-go dancer. Everything but the nipple. Even in the context of a married couple making love it would not be allowed. But isn't the act of making love the most intimate, loving experience two people can share? I did, however, see "The Red Dragon" on TV the other day, and I saw Ray Liotta sitting at the dinner table with his head peeled like a melon and his brains glistening in the light. And I saw Robocop on TV and saw a man get his jugular ripped out.

And we can turn on the Discovery Channel or Animal Planet and see every creature on God's green Earth procreate. Lions, elephants, dung beetles, yellow-breasted warblers--you name it. But a human's nipple? Out of the question! Again, I'm not arguing that pornography should be broadcast on NBC, I'm just trying to wrap my head around this.

I guess what I don't get is how, generally, violence gets the OK while other less-offensive, in my opinion, acts get the kibosh. Now, I think we can all agree that Jack shouldn't have called his son a "son of a bitch" or a "son of a gun." But of everything that happened in the Overlook Hotel, was that Jack's greatest sin? According to the FCC, the answer may be yes.