I note the Guardian's report of Colin Firth's objection to the version of 'The King's Speech' to be released in the US, censoring the bad language used by the King at certain points in the film.

To recap, and for those who haven't yet seen this excellent film, King George VI ('Bertie' to family and friends) has a very serious stammer, induced by the bullying of his father George V. Oppressed by this handicap, he seeks the help of speech therapist Lionel Logue, a frank, straightforward Australian (if that isn't too tautological!). As part of the therapy, Logue encourages Bertie to ride over his inhibitions and fears by swearing when he finds his speech blocked by tension ("...t...t...shitshitshit bugger bugger ..."!). I find this funny ... artistically effective ... and, I'm sure, psychologically accurate.

The US distributors, Weinstein, wish to secure a family audience in the States by removing this 'bad language' so as to secure a PG13 rating. On the one hand, it is good that the film should reach the widest possible audience; on the other hand, thinks Firth, such censorship is unjustifiable - "...in the context of the film (the swearing) couldn't be more edifying, more appropriate. It's not vicious or insulting..."

There are two intriguing aspects to this controversy. Firstly, the different natures of US and UK cultures. Apparently, 'The King's Speech' has a '12' rating in the UK - anyone over the age of twelve can see the uncut version, swearing and all. In the US, the uncut version received an 'R' rating - Restricted, in that people of 17 and under can only see the film if accompanied by a person over 18. (But this leaves me a bit confused: Harvey Weinstein appears to want the cuts because then families can see the film together ... surely the 'R' rating absolutely requires that families see the film together? It must be that an 'R' rating means that nobody in the family is going to see the film, alone or together.) Either way round, it seems that a significant part of the US audience will not go to see a film which has 'bad' language. Why should this be? And how does such an attitude compare with other cultures around the world?

And secondly, what actually is 'bad' about 'bad language'? Is it that these words refer to ideas which we shouldn't think about? Or that we can think about them, but not express them out loud? Or that we can express the ideas in words, but only in the context of condemnation? Or that we can refer to the ideas, but only with appropriate euphemisms? I wonder what the 'censored' version of the film will be like - will they cut the scene entirely, or re-dub it with acceptable euphemisms?  "...t...t...excrementexcrementexcrement..." lacks force, somehow.

Is it that what is 'bad' about 'bad language' is that it conveys violence? This violence lies both in the sound of the words themselves (certainly true of Anglo-Saxon, but is this true of other languages?) - and in the way that 'bad language' evokes ideas which society normally chooses to avoid. So, societies which censor such language believe that such violence should simply be curbed, and societies which don't censor believe that such violence should be at least tolerated.

But what is this violence? 'The King's Speech' illustrates this well, as it happens. The film seems to argue that Bertie's difficulties result from the violence of his father's insensitive treatment of him. Violence creates (repressed) violence - and Bertie's use of violent language expresses and releases and dissolves his violent tension. Should we be advocating Swearing Therapy sessions ?

[You might find it useful to refer to Wikipedia's summary of rating systems. Comparing and contrasting rating systems of different countries may be a useful way of grappling with each country's cultural values.]

Handout:   The King's (rude) Speech ... this blog is available as a student handout