British Film Institute: "James Bond films given trigger warnings as they 'will cause offence today'"
...Both Bond movies – You Only Live Twice and Goldfinger – and the other films airing have been slapped with blanket disclaimers on the BFI website, warning they may ‘contain language, images or other content that reflect views prevalent in its time, but will cause offence today (as they did then).
‘The titles are included here for historical, cultural or aesthetic reasons and these views are in no way endorsed by the BFI or its partners.’
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/ja ... b63a&ei=66
Yeah, pretty much the entire character of James Bond could cause offence to a lot of people today, not to mention naming a female character "Pussy Galore." But is it really necessary to tell film goers that a film produced in 1964ish will have different cultural, behavioural, and language standards than are prevalent today?
But it's pretty common to alter the past retroactively, in literature, cinema and frequently real life. (No, Sonny Jurgenson did not join the "Washington Commanders" in 1964 as stated in part of his Wiki article.
"Dates joined: 1964 (Washington Commanders), 1957 (Philadelphia Eagles), 1954 (Duke Blue Devils football)"
So I wondered, what would an author write if s/he was writing a historical novel set in 1850 in South Carolina. Would s/he have to avoid all positive references to slavery, all use of the term "nigger", let everyone use the same restroom, have women voting, yada? Would they have to refer to the slave market in Charleston as a "relocation service"? Can you write a believable novel without using a reasonably accurate setting for the time? And if they wrote it with context and language of the time, would anybody publish it? Or sell it?
“The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Makes one wonder what the goal was.
