I thought I had learned to keep my thoughts to myself, but your reply along this thread was so well thought out and logical...well, you deserve a blue star or something! And Louisville! D.W. Griffth went o Junior High there. I believe the interesting point about the censorship I had to deal with is that its origin seemed to be political, rather than, say, violence or objectional "f" words. The other day one person on this distinguished forum posed a question about my reasoning or motivation for the character making the comment, "Shes a dyke." The question was rethorica, and, to say the least, "loaded." Sort of a, "Do you still beat your wife" kind of question. And that, Tom, is THE issue. The censorship in this case (the film), was a form of political censorship. Why do I say this? For one thing, when I finished the film in 1988, the use of the word "dyke" was not objected to by anyone...the distributor, the critics(the film got a very good review BTW), HBO,etc. But, sometime later, about 1989 though 1992, the word was changed in certain cases.(particular networks, foreign markets, etc.) It is my belief that in 1988 PC had not yet gathered enough momentum to assert this kind of change in most media, (Except perhaps PC censorship on college campuses). Nothing new really. EVERY American film, as you know, was subject to various forms of political censorship during the late 1940's through the late 1950's. They too said they were not clamping down on free speech or thought, just protecting us from those darned communists. If in this case the character's motivation to say "dyke" rather than "gay" is the character's true and honest motivation, then thats all there is to it. Please don't get the idea that I'm some right winger, I'm not. Right down the center of the road is where I think I am. But I refuse to comply with some PC'ers sensitivity and compromise my work. Hell, the system compromises it enough already! I was absolutely amazed after the screening of my latest effort at how perceptive the audience was! Small, delicate points that I was worried might get lost were picked up quickly. The audience can deal with most anything, but never pull your punches or lie to them. They are so damned smart. The dyke/gay question underscores this. Other filmmaker friends of mine struggle with this same problem. And what DO you do? Satisfy the thankfully limited number of PCer's well intended but flawed sensitivity and compromise the whole effort? Like many worthy issues, there is no black and white answer here. But I would hope that most of us would err on the side of artistic freedom of expression. I will never forget a lecture I had in film school from that incredible German ex-filmmaker, Leni Refinstahl.(sp) She told us about an an informal experiment she conducted back in the 1940's when she screened a wonderful documentary/propaganda film she had just finished which extolled the virtues of her then close friend, Adolph. Seems she showed the film to two different, specially selected audiences. One audience was composed of people who already loved Hitler and the other audience most assuredly hated and despised the man. Her result was that the film didn't change anybodys opinion about Hitler, only reinforced their previous opinions. Again, thanks for your most welcomed reply. ____________________________________________________________________________ ---------------->from John G. Thomas ([log in to unmask]) <------------------- ____________________________________________________________________________