The movie named "f-word"

The first time I heard (or saw that word, actually) was when I was in 5th grade. Someone had graffitied it to the window of our classroom. It was a big day, everyone whispered about it. I still had no idea what it meant, but I came to realize that it was the worst bad word in the world.

Then suddenly everyone used it when we got to Junior High like it was nothing and I never thought about it as that offensive again.

I enjoyed reading your frank discussion of that (not really very) taboo word (I worry if I type it here my comment may be automatically blocked). I have to disagree about its connotations with violence when applied to a sexual scenario however. Rape is an horrific act of violence. It is more likely the product of repressed feelings than the predatory nature of the male gender. But sexuality is an infinitely more complex series of interactions in which people are perfectly entitled, regardless of their gender, to be aroused by the F word (or even by the word 'rape'). It is sad that its societal connotation suggests the dominance of the masculine over the feminine (a woman ought to able to talk of f**king a man rather than necessarily being f**ked by him, for instance), but if there is a violent edge to its consonant sounds (as there is to that other most-taboo of words), people are entitled to enjoy that edge to it. This has virtually nothing to do with real violence. People are probably more open about their sexuality than ever before, and I think it's a good thing. Using the word does not necessarily create a sense of hostility, as you say; it can be funny, sweet, erotic, surprising. Like all words, it depends on its context.

As a strong feminist I appreciate this post immensely. I am not sure I would go so far as say the word connotes rape, but it certainly brings violence and anger and contempt to mind. Intercourse, making love, relations--all these bring with them the sense that their is mutuality and a mixture of activity and passivity in sex--f**king boils down sex to an act an a merciless one. However, I will undermine what I am saying by asserting that f**K went out of favor around the time of the William's conquest of Britain due to the Norman's distaste for Anglo-Saxon vernacular. I have wondered about this at times. Somewhere along the line the f-word gained the reputation for being a word for the unwashed masses. It existence still reflect something of a carnivalesque protest. Yet, usage is king. The etymology of the word only proves that the meaning of the word might eventually change again if enough people use it in different ways. For now, the greater danger is that the word will shape our action cheapening acts that should be humanizing (both reminding us of our animality and the capacities that allow us to transcend.) Thanks for risking sounding like a moralizing old prude!

Lewis Thomas wrote a fine essay in his Et Cetera, Et Cetera, decrying the fact that the word had come into frequent use.

I agree with you (and him) that it's a powerful word, that it loses its power with overuse, and that it can be abrasive when used casually in ordinary conversation.

That said, I agree with Adam - to me, it doesn't carry any connotation of violence.

It saddens me, though, when I hear adults using long streams of profanities around - and to - their children. I wish people would be more aware of the power their speech has.

Mr. Ebert, I must admit to being a bit surprised at this latest blog entry of yours, as I've usually found myself sharing most of your opinions in the past.

I suppose what I am surprised at is that I just have no idea where some of the suggestions you are making come from, in terms of a cognitive supporting structure. Admittedly, opinion does not need to always have a supporting structure constructed, but they stand stronger when they do, and as these suggestions seem a bit odd (at least to my sensibilities), knowing the supporting structure of this commentary would assist.

In all honesty, I'm not sure how, cognitively, there's a link between the word "fudge" and rape. The word "fudge" is a crude word, but its commonly understood primary definition is the act of sexual intercourse. I've never heard any context in which the word alone has the additional connotation of the brutal nonconsensual act that rape is, nor even having a connotation of any element which could reasonably be then connected to rape.

It is, I think, not vocabulary that represents public civility, but intent. Postulate a guy greeting another guy on the street with this: "Harry, how the fudge are you!", followed by a big bear hug. I don't feel public civility was violated there, and in fact, I feel somewhat warmly at the display of affection. I certainly don't feel that "something sad" was represented by that guy's use of "fudge" as a sign of great emotional emphasis in his term.

I also feel it's of beneficial use to society as a whole as a release of anger. At least in my experience, using the word "fudge" helps dissipate, not aggravate, anger. If someone can, instead of bringing a shotgun to work the next day, walk away with a steady stream of profanity mumbled under his or her breath, society is all the better from it.

And its use in terms of sexual emphasis -- again, I think it relies upon the underlying emotional intent. If a man or woman uses that term to lustily suggest sexual intercourse, the moral weight of that word instead rests upon the relationship between the two. If it is stranger-to-stranger, the term is quite offensive. If it is lover-to-lover, it may be a sign of deep sexual attraction, in which case such love-lust is, I feel, a positive emotion.

My own (respectful) suggestion is that this is a result of a natural progression that all humanity experiences. I'm somewhat resigned to the fact that thanks to that downward progression, there will be things going on in several decades which will most likely offend my moral sensibilities, since my moral sense is a natural product of my upbringing in the '70s, '80s, and '90s. I think that mankind's consensus as to public morality has always been on a steady progression from the more restrictive to the more permissible. (One thinks of the "Idiocracy" satire as taking that progression even further, if somewhat dytopically.)

But I think morality has to be relativism-based, because I think most of the problems of modern-day mankind are based on people who base their morality on inflexible absolutes. That results in religious fundamentalism, and their inflexibility has caused much of the world great pain. (I am not comparing you to a fundamentalist! Just saying that mankind must not be held to moral absolutes that disregard the chronological advance of time.)

[Originally written at 2:12 pm; comment edited and resubmitted to remove the specific profane term being discussed, as it apparently caused an autoblocking of my comment, as people who wrote later than I did were published.]

I have to respectfully disagree. It has long been my contention that people should not fear words. I, too, fear getting blocked for using any controversial language here, but this is clearly a popular subject in modern times--just think of Don Imus, Isaiah Washington, Sarah Silverman, or any presidential candidate. Words clearly matter.

I think we should all have the right to say them, as we thankfully do. In this way, I feel professionals should not be punished for printing such words out of necessity (as when they appear in a reviewed film's title), and further, I feel professionals should stick to the format and not censor R-rated film titles. However, like you, Mr. Ebert, I find slurs and the word in question generally ugly. Say a film were being made whose title is a fiery black slur that we've all heard. I would stand by my argument that newspapers should print the title when referencing it. I don't think the enemy is the word but the hate.

On the other hand, I think that anyone who wants to be respected should find more appropriate terms--most taboo words are awfully imprecise--unless, of course, the subject of discourse is the terms themselves. In short, I believe in everyone's right to use such words, but know that using them will likely lower my respect.

The producers of Young People ----ing got around the issue with their website URL, at least: www.ypfthemovie.com/ . "Ypfthe" would likely be a curse only if uttered by Breathed's Bill The Cat. [Resubmitted without the word.]

The initial poster from Montreal might have been thinking of the 2005 film "Fuck," directed by Steve Anderson. It's a rather good documentary on the history of the word that addresses the issues you've touched upon here. Trivia from imdb.com says that the word "fuck" is used 857 times throughout the film, "making an average 9.52 f-words a minute." Which might even give Tarantino pause. Or maybe not.

The f-word has always been useful in times of extreme stress in private for hundreds of years. I allow myself an allotment. The widening indiscriminate use of it in public signals a rejection of the idea that we live together in a community, elbow to elbow. That's not nothing. When I hear it in public I feel like Dustin Hoffman when he yells to the taxi driver, "Hey, I'm walking here!".

Hello Mr. Ebert. Here's the IMDB listing I think you weren't able to find. In the US it was called "F*ck!": ww.imdb.com/title/tt0486585/. I think it's playing or has recently played on Canadian TV's "The Movie Network". I haven't yet seen the movie. As to the word itself, I recall an English professor (the smartest man I've ever met so far) saying the origin of the word had to do with farming. My memory is hazy on it now. It was either the act of plowing the row or planting the seeds after the row was plowed. On a whim some months ago I tried to see if there was confirmation of this anywhere and couldn't find it. The F*ck movie purports to be "A documentary on the expletive's origin, why it offends some people so deeply, and what can be gained from its use.” So maybe the answer is in there.

As to the power of the word itself, I'm reminded of Gene Rodenberry (wait for it) who purposely named all his lead characters with that hard, K sound: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, Riker, Crusher. The only reason was to add strength to the character.

A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but sometime you just have to puncutate the venom of the moment with that strong, anglo-saxon plosive.

SIMPLE:

Alfred Hitchock to Ingrid Bergman: "It's only a movie."

Me: It's only a word, and just like all words, it has a specific meaning.

Sorry about the confusion over the title. I included the first part of the movie's title in the subject field. I wasn't sure how your spam filter would handle the email.

My only real problem with this movie is that it's classified as a "controversial" movie. And way too often, I've found movies that were deemed controversial to be incredibly dull.

While I agree the main point of your essay (the decline of civility), I find your last-minute romanticism of the past alarming.

They also didn't say that word in Pleasantville, eithier. I quote from your review that has stayed with me all these years:

"`Pleasantville'' is the kind of parable that encourages us to re-evaluate the good old days and take a fresh look at the new world we so easily dismiss as decadent. Yes, we have more problems. But also more solutions, more opportunities and more freedom. I grew up in the '50s. It was a lot more like the world of ``Pleasantville'' than you might imagine. Yes, my house had a picket fence, and dinner was always on the table at a quarter to six, but things were wrong that I didn't even know the words for."

I know you were talking about a different decade, but has so much changed with you from that review ten years ago? I don't think we need the f word printed in a family newspaper, but I also don't think we need a return to a world that's more "pleasant". Sometimes, people say the F word simply because things are wrong and they don't even know the words for it.

I use this word. I use it a lot.

I actually feel I use it too often and have attempted to cut back, with varying degrees of success.

Part of me, though, wishes people weren't as "easily" offended by language. Seems like there's a lot out there to be offended by, but why be offended by a mere word that's now so common?

And part of me understands completely why the word is still considered offensive, still has power.

There's really no way to have a neat answer to these questions, I suppose. We just do what we do and work it all out as we go along.

-Nighthawk

How about the word in its abbreviated context? Is it just as offensive or does it lessen its power? By abbreviated, I mean "Wtf?" or "OMFG!" These are terms used in everyday young teenage language, in emails and text messages, just as common as LOL or TTYL.

I saw an ad on a Times Square billboard for the CW's "Gossip Girl", featuring an image of a young couple in what appears to be mid-coitus, and the letters across the billboard read, "OMFG!"

Is that offensive? If you're a teenager who watches the show or wants to, it's not offensive. It's exciting, even titilating. But I bet if you're that teenager's parent, it is offensive and ugly.

The most entertaining aspect of the entire controversy here in Canada was the occasional use and artful avoidance of the word during the Senate committee hearings on Bill C-10. Then there was the Conservative MP's assistant who was reportedly fired for accepting an invitation to the film's screening on her boss' computer.

Happily for the film's producers, all the controversy has virtually guaranteed that this otherwise obscure little Canadian film will be a huge hit when it finally opens here.

(BTW, I've always found the F-word to be most effective when spoken with a British accent)

At dinner recently with my twenty-six year old son and his wife, my wife and I gently objected to his casual use of the word, and his response was interesting. He said that the word is nothing more than "an all-purpose participial modifier."

I had to rewrite this because it looks like I too have been blocked.

Adam Whyte wrote:
" People are probably more open about their sexuality than ever before, and I think it's a good thing. Using the word does not necessarily create a sense of hostility, as you say; it can be funny, sweet, erotic, surprising. Like all words, it depends on its context."

I totally agree, well said. The f-word does not, contrary to the original post, have any inevitable connotations of rape or even of male dominance. Depending on the context, it can provide a frisson of edginess, lustiness, and passion to a sexual encounter, especially one that might otherwise be more politely termed "making love." There's nothing wrong with using it that way, and quite frankly there's something very fun about being a bit vulgar and dirty with someone you love.

Incidentally, my favorite ever use of the f-word in film is at the end of Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut, where Kubrick makes it literally the last word on the film's examination of sexuality, monogamy, and marriage. Nicole Kidman is given the word to say, and it carries with it a rather hopeful suggestion that the central couple at least stands a chance of recovering what they've lost. Throughout the film, they struggle with sexual misunderstandings and disconnection, and the frankness and bluntness with which Kidman spits out the forbidden word signals a new sexual openness for the couple's marriage. It's a perfect way to end a brilliant film, and I personally don't think that the word has ANY negative connotations when used there, any more than it does whenever it's used between two lovers.

Very good, open and honest post, Roger. Thank you for sharing that. I frankly admit I expected a more "we have to be open" opinion, but I am humbled by the appeal to decency and consideration that you expressed. There is a simple vulgarity to the word, and there's no "closed-minded" shame in recognizing that. I understand that for many people (friends included) it's just a part of vernacular punctuation. Someday its vulgarity may or may not entirely disappear.

I've been living in Japan for the last seven years or so, and ironically one of the benefits is that I've learned more about my own country (the USA) than I'd ever expected. In Japan people are raised to think of other people first, to not incovenience them, not offend them -- even to try to read their expectations so that you don't have to verbalize something ("isshin-denshin" -- having the same heart). Of course this can impose additional baggage on people, but I feel that often American culture aims for the opposite extreme. In the United States we tend to point out the smallest error with trumpets, triumphing our "right" to do so and the moral superiority of doing so. The result of this is that yes, we may make a valid point, but we do so at the expense of offending countless more people. It's akin to gashing someone's arm with a big knife in order to make them aware of a paper-cut. At times we seem to care more for "truth" (or rather, minute facts that have been overlooked and which we dub "the truth") than we do for the feelings, lives and hearts of all the people we may be offending in order to make our point.

I feel that often our defenses about the right to swear (etc.) fall into this category, where we put our own desires ahead of those around us, and seem partially driven by a need to just make our case for our case's sake. Just because.

Thank you for writing what you did. It gives me faith that there are still powerful voices who appeal to care for others. God bless you you, Roger.

I'm far too young to say for certain, but I don't believe this fairytale of "the more dignified past". The notion that people were once more civilized than they are today is just an the illusion, a historical slight-of-hand, the result of willfully blind nostalgia and cultural suppression.

Prior to the revolutions of the 1960's, our society actively suppressed the "lower classes". Offensive language was an effective means of class recognition and delineation. While there were certainly many people who used words such as the "f-bomb" in the 1930s, they were the poor, the dejected, the social undesirables. Such "lower class" people were not tolerated in the presence of distinguished gentlemen and gentlewomen, and thus, they were marginalized to the fringes of society. Ghettos, jails and asylums kept offensive language far away from the Opera House.

Only once writers, publishers and artists were freed from the cultural confines of censorship were we to first to read and hear these words in mainstream books and films. This occurred in parallel with the collapse of the American Aristocracy and the rise of the middle class.

So, does the increased use of offensive language represent the debasement, or the liberation, of society? And if we tried to suppress offensive language once again, would we be lubricating the machine of economic repression once again?

Wow, by chance I just read your Great Movies review of "My Man Godfrey"...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080529/REVIEWS08/925898329

...and I have to say that it compliments what you have written here about the f-word very well. Thank you again! Through that movie, we see a glimpse of something better.

Hello Mr. Ebert. Here's the IMDB listing I think you weren't able to find. In the US it was called "F**k!" (Rosetta stone: the first "*" is a real part of the title, the second "*" is one I added to get by the bad-word filter. Are we all clear? I thought not.) I think the movie's playing or has recently played on Canadian TV's "The Movie Network". I haven't seen it yet. As to the word itself, I recall an English professor (the smartest man I've ever met so far) saying the origin of the word had to do with farming. My memory is hazy on it now. It was either the act of ploughing the row or planting the seeds after the row was ploughed. On a whim some months ago I tried to see if there was confirmation of this origin story anywhere but couldn't find it. By the way, the F**k movie purports to be "A documentary on the expletive's origin, why it offends some people so deeply, and what can be gained from its use”, so maybe the answer to the farming story is in there.

As to the power of the word itself, I'm reminded of Gene Rodenberry (wait for it...) who purposely named all his lead characters with that hard, K sound: Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Picard, Riker, Crusher. The only reason was to add strength to the character.

So, a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but sometimes it's just nice to punctuate the venom of the moment with that strong, Anglo-Saxon plosive.

It just occurred to me, I also wrote a profanity-laced article on Paul Verhoeven's Turkish Delight recently, which is a pretty good example of a film that mingles the filthy with the strangely sweet. It would've been hard to talk about the film without using the f-word quite liberally, since Verhoeven's characters don't really make love, they f**k. But they f**k in such a way that we understand their deep attraction to each other, an attraction that goes much deeper than mere momentary passion. The film is a weird mix of the vulgar and the sweet, and this is a pretty common connotation for the f-word in general.

Almost certainly Mr. Caron is indeed referring to the film "Young People F***ing", as it opened this week in Toronto to mostly apathy.

Perhaps, Mr. Caron is indulging in our odd Canadian variation of Jimmy Kimmel's "unnecessary censorship", wherein the perceived offending term is allowed to remain while the preceding words are bleeped.

I first noticed this on the Toronto television station CITY-TV. Movie dialogue that contained the pejorative "motherf***er" was regularly snipped so that the word "mother" was not heard. This happened far too frequently to be poor timing or mere coincidence.

The issue is legal and not semantic (or worse! fraught with gender politics!)and until we get the definition of obscenity under control, we're chasing our tails trying to codify what things mean.

What are the standards of the community? And now, with the online community making up an ad hoc self-nominated space, how do you describe a community, define it, determine its boundaries?

We should have handled this long ago. It is not obscene or pornographic simply because one knows it when one sees it.

It's more a disharmonious jangle that lights us up. When I see, for instance, a Radiohead CD or Fight Club available at Costco, I feel that tingle that tells me that something is wrong, that a creation that tries, at least, to undermine aspects of mass consumerism should not be on sale at a place of mass consumption--

--and I'm not on the SCOTUS, trying to parse out these issues. I expect the justices to be far better at this than I. Go for it; that's why you've got the lifetime appointment. You figure it out. Translate my jangled sense of discontinuity in the community to something concrete and you'll have done a man's job, my son.

As for me, I just know it when I see it. That's great for me as a letter-writer, not so much as a legislator. So I cheer on my elected officials and my appointed justices to try to get something in place that will reflect the changes of the past 25 years. Our tools are outdated and our standards no longer apply.

Go David Souter! Go Alito! Go Ginsburg! Or as Parker and Stone so eloquently put it, "Fuck Yeah!"

I'm interested in almost the very last statement you made: "Would I review the film? If it was reviewable, yes." What would make a film unreviewable to you? That said, I'm with you 100%--we know the word. Most of us have used it--or at least thought it and wanted to use it--at some point. But hearing it and its ugly siblings and cousins does coarsen our public life. I'm not arguing anyone's right to use it--just that it seems so uncessary to toss it around in the way my parents used to say, "oh brother!" Having to hear it wherever I go--frequently, loudly, repeatedly, in tones of anger that threaten violence--I feel assaulted. And I'm simply curious at the reason this word became the title: was it because no other word would work? Because this word alone said what the filmmakers wanted to say? Or was it simply, "because we can"? I teach English, and while I know these words exist, I also know--as you said--that they are special and powerful. Not to be tossed around right and left. I think of "Land of Hope and Glory" and the small boys approaching that word with wonder and fear...

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, my sentiments almost exactly.

I hear this word used in two ways: one as a meaningless buzz-word, which adds nothing to any worthwhile sentiment; and the other as as a means of expressing dominance and/or demeaning someone. (FU! STFU!) If it were only used to express its root meaning appropriately, I would have no problem with it.

I think The Dude said it all.

A great article and debate on the use of the F-word.

Roger, the movie premiers in Canada June 13th and has been shown at many film festivals around North America. It is not due out on DVD anytime soon as it may play in theatres in the US.

As a theatre critic I value your opinion and hope you have a chance to see the movie and tell us what you think.

cheers.....

Ebert: I plan to review it.

Heres the link to YPF at CINEPLEX

http://www.cineplex.com/Movies/MovieDetails/BB7E71D9/Young_People_F_king.aspx?tab=2

cheers....

My cousin is a linguist and was able to articulate what I couldn't about profanity. "I find it very aggressive." She also was quick to say that she didn't mind profanity in cases of high emotion. That's its function.

I agree with Ed Howard, whose great review everyone should read, that profane words can denote specific meanings that are appropriate for certain situations. I would not want to see them go away or be bleached of their power. But like all abuses of power, excessive profanity is, in my opinion, undesirable.

Said by Ed Howard:

"Almost certainly Mr. Caron is indeed referring to the film "Young People F***ing", as it opened this week in Toronto to mostly apathy.

"Perhaps, Mr. Caron is indulging in our odd Canadian variation of Jimmy Kimmel's "unnecessary censorship", wherein the perceived offending term is allowed to remain while the preceding words are bleeped."

Yes, I was talking about the movie "Young People Fucking". The problem was the way I sent my email to Mr. Ebert. The subject of the email said "About the upcoming Canadian movie Young People...", and the body of the email started with "...Fucking." I was simply trying to avoid having a slightly aggressive spam filter throw the email in the trash.

As for the analogy to Jimmy Kimmel's regular feature is concerned, I never thought of that. But it is funny when you think about it for a moment!

I'm truly impressed by the comments being posted here on the subject. All I wanted to know is how Mr. Ebert would approach the delicate subject of naming the movie in his review if he ever had the chance to review it. I didn't expect a simple misunderstanding in the movie's title would produce such a positive outcome!

That made my week! Thanks!

Ebert: So THAT was the problem with the title! The producers of YPF have contacted me and I wil review the movie, which is set for Canadian and U.S. release.

I think the word is used too much, because it is intended to be a strong word, and any word loses its strength when it is over-used. We should reserve certain words, and types of language, for situations in which they would be appropriate; otherwise, when a situation arises that calls for strong language, we're out of options. Then the only way to convey the strength of the moment is to yell, which is less civilized and less coherent, in my opinion.

And while I agree with some commenters above regarding freedom of speech, etc., I do believe we as a society need to agree to defer to the sensitivities of those around us - especially in cases where children are potential hearers/readers. For example, while I have no problem with the principle of someone saying whatever he feels appropriate to say, I would not feel comfortable allowing my child to read a newspaper if I thought he might encounter such strong language in a disproportionately casual context.

I don't know if you've seen the IMDb link for a film you reviewed called "Show Me Love" from 1998 (good film by the way), but the actual title is "F-cking Amal". Oh those crazy kids with their crazy film titles...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150662/

A woman once said to me "When you say 'make love', I want to." We didn't but I've not forgotten the power of tenderness. The phrase is really rather mawkish but I use it often, or the more neutral and bland "Sleep with".

"Isn't a woman who says fucking saying something sad about herself?" - I think I know this woman. Perhaps it is more complex than that, as the phrase excludes a lot of wimpishness and any hint of emotional dependency (by either party). It is a business word, a negotiator's word, a way of marking out the terms of the enterprise. It is a way of saying: this, yes this, as far as it will go, but nothing more. The tone is different and the act itself is different.

I am more frightened of the woman who has never used the F-word; I would fear her expectations. There are also times when it is purely sexy, as in Nicole Kidman's use of it at the close of "Eyes Wide Shut".

It can imply rape; Andrew Dworkin uses it often in a beautiful way which shows her contempt for it - it is repetitious, perfunctory and a dead-end piece of male sexuality. When Marilyn Manson or Trent Reznor use it seems to suggest violence, and yet some women respond positively to them. It might just be the intensity, the temporary suspension of tender feelings in the pursuit of our animal desires. Turn up the noise, take a stiff drink and worry about the rest in the morning.

Oh and women can sometimes use it simply to hurt and to flatter. That is the ugly, competitive part; the ego, the finishing line, the act of possession. It is easy to be spooked by this; much harder to see the underlying sadness, if it happens to be there, and if she happens to want to show it to you. Inevitably, perhaps, having come through the crucible of jealousy that any young man goes through, I am now hopelessly attracted to sadness in a woman. I can withstand a lot of other charms but somehow not this one.

The word is simply that - a word. But it does have meaning, and in the case of this word, quite a few different meanings and usages. But I think the larger issue that Mr. Ebert was trying to touch upon is the lack of consideration for other people when using f**k (or any other "swear" word, for that matter). I don't think he was saying that we need to behave like Ward and June Cleaver, but I do feel that we should at least be aware of others around us and realize that some of them may be offended (regardless if they should be offended or not by a word). I use the word quite often. Probably more than I should, but I try to show restraint if I'm in public or around other people I know will be offended by it. It does not limit my vocabulary in those situations nor does it inconvenience me in any way.

We seem to live in a very egocentric culture. One in which no one seems to care about the belief systems of other people. Not to make this issue any bigger than it is, but wouldn't you want to defend someone's personal religious belief if it was being infringed upon by someone else? So why would you infringe upon someone's perceived offense of the word? Someone earlier said, "It's just a word." Yes, it is just a word. But people are not 'just' people. Let's learn to respect them again.

I refer you to some great comments by Stephen Fry: http://youtube.com/watch?v=LcfaC4yhUvs

His bit on swearing starts at about 4:30, and I couldn't agree with him more.

This discussion is one of the things I love most about the Internet! Thank you, Mr. Ebert and everyone who posted, for your thoughtful comments.

My late friend from Knoxville, Tennesee, explained the concept of context to her children: she said, "You can say anything you want to say in private, but you have to understand that there are things (not just words, but topics) that are not appropriate in polite society." That this state is not always easy to define was demonstrated one evening while she and her family were sitting in their living room, and her youngest daughter, probably about seven or eight years old by then, said, "Mama and Daddy, are we in polite society right now?"

Next year sometime, most likely in January Hollywood will be making a surrealist film in which the F-word is used in the title. And it is with this surrealist film (it's Bunuelian; not Lynchian so much) that Hollywood will forever be changed. And Mr. Ebert will love it, even if the title doesn't play nice. Like I always say, I'm not controversial, I think differently, therefore I AM.

I believe De Sade used the word a-plenty, though in its French variant of course...

I'm relatively sure that cuss words have always been a part of language, depressing or no, and that includes our Depression-era brothers and sisters...

I would also stand up for the power of words such as that to be turned around, their meaning bent or played with. Language has that possibility within it...

I think that like a strong spice, f*ck should be used sparingly. At times, nothing else is as appropriate whether the speaker is male or female. If used liberally or carelessly, it not only loses its punch, but also does indicate something sad about the user: a paucity of introspection (and the resultant insight), and an inability to fully express oneself.
I find I use it when I am overwhelmed by the demands in my life. If I find myself muttering in my head that i need to go to the effing store or complete the effing project--that acts as a clue that I need to stop, evaluate and change something. I won't use it in public--I don't see the point of adding to the rudeness that is already pervasive.

I think f*ck scares people as a word--it can denote sex or anger or both at the same time. Anger and lust are two of the strongest human impulses (the other is fear); to have both connoted in one word makes that word powerful indeed. I don't see the rape connection at all.
Sometimes, the F-word can be funny--it can add that extra punch to a line from a stand up comic or put a spin on an anecdote. F*ck is not always hostile and ugly. If memory serves, it is derived from the old German word, fricken--to strike.

Just my 2 cents...

Sorry, I just found this online and wanted to share. It's not "fricken", but "ficken", but I confused it with the Middle Dutch word, "fokken"--to strike. Memory is not what it used to be!

here is the link for more info on the origin of the F word:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_268b.html

Eleanor

I fancy myself something of a revolutionist, so I use the f-word frequently, without apology. I would really like to see it lose the bulk of its punch. Does that make me rude? You may assume so, but I'm willing to bet that I'm at least as polite as the average American. And maybe that's what you're saying - that our nation, our culture, as a whole, is too inconsiderate. To delve into the regional aspects of it, I grew up in Texas and went to school in New York, and each state has its own out-in-public etiquette, though the people of both are equally immune to the effects of the dreaded f-bomb. So, that makes me wonder, just who's affected by the f-word now? Who is likely to cringe, say, if they overheard me muttering it at the grocery store? I'm likely to say "older" people, and perhaps small children, who wouldn't be so much offended as just shocked that yes, you can say that word and you won't die.

As a woman, I don't see it as a derogatory term, and I am not offended by it. With so much going on in the world, I just feel like there are better things to invest my emotions into. And maybe my use of the word does say something about me as a person. I'm not illiterate, I'm pretty well-educated, and I could put on an intellectual front if I was up to it, so that eliminates the theory that people use it for lack of a better word; I could find a better word if I truly *wanted to*. But I'm not a romantic. Personally, I would hate it if a guy I was romantically involved with used the term "make love." Maybe it's just my natural hard edge, my innate cynicism, but whenever I see someone get flustered at the word "fudge," my reaction is something along the lines of, "Oh, just get over it."

I'm reminded of the riff done by Dustin Hoffman as Lenny Bruce in the film "Lenny." In front of an audience that included plenty of African Americans, he started using what's come to be known as the N-word. At first, it was very offensive, particularly to the black members of the audience. But he used it, over and over and over, making the point that if you say a word enough, it loses its meaning, and theoretically its offensiveness.

I feel that way about the so-called F-word. Eventually it will lose its power to offend. After all, it is just a word. Consider the number of times it is used in a movie like "Goodfellas" for instance. Rather than seeming offensive every time you hear the word, you realize it's just another word that these guys use every day of their lives.

I am a woman of forty, a writer, a highly sensitive person, a feminist, a bit of a dip, and a lover of my dog, family, and friends. I am richly blessed in all of these, and make it my business to be copiously grateful to all those who have blessed me, most particularly my G-d. I would never use this word to my nieces, or in public places where children might hear me. I would never say it in front of my mother.

However, I do say it ... and I definitely say it in my personal amorous context. I say it to a man with whom the very sharpness and power of the term throw the love between us into the starkest relief. Limned with fire, yes, use of this word between us has never been a matter of violence (he did not initiate it, and is extraordinarily sensitive, even if he is the most daring man I have ever met).

It is ownership, first and foremost.

As Inga Muscio generated a population of women for whom the word "cn/ut" is a bold personal badge ... as "f*gs" took ownership of a slur ... as "n*gg*rs" became "n*ggahs" interpersonally, I refused to accept that f**k is a "bad" word - for MYSELF. With the man I love and have loved for six years, it is a word of the most shocking tenderness. It is a word which sometimes carries with it all the excitement of the forbidden - the central reason this word is popular in ANY context, and the central crimp to any kink of a sexual nature. It is a word of simplicity and straightforward intent, two hallmarks of the long relationship I treasure more than any I have ever had outside my own blood. It is a word of intensity we have harnessed together. It has never once been something either of us has said we "do to" each other. It is mutual and beautiful and intimate in the rarest, most breathtaking way.

It is ours. I have never used it with another. Neither has he. It is unique. It has become, because at first it could not possibly be so, entirely and irretrievably sentimental. It is something we miss (we are separated by 4000 miles). And it is, in the context of distance, a short rope between us. A strong spice, as Mr. Quiles says above.

I am a woman who loves to f*** and be f***ed. But not just by anyone. Not just anytime. I am choosy, I am priceless. The price of my love, at about thirty-five, became f***ing. I may never make love again.

But I will never, ever, be without love, as I was for all the years before I f***ed.

I am a woman who loves to f***

OK - It must be the hour of the day for free association, because as I read that penultimate paragraph, I was reminded of the singing get-well-soon card from Ferris Bueller:

[Ferris opens the door]I heard you were feeling ill,
Headache, fever, and a chill,
I came to restore your pluck,
Cos I'm the nurse who loves to f[/Ferris smashes the door]

I personally dislike hearing the the olde anglosaxon word in conversation when used as "an all-purpose participial modifier." When heated emphasis is needed, fine. Otherwise, it makes me uncomfortable-- I have a hard time saying it myself, and I'm 45 yrs old. On the other hand, I REALLY HATE the bleeps on TV. I'd rather hear that word and others on late night TV, especially the Comedy Channel, than the f**king bleeps! A warning at the top of the broadcast should be sufficient to warn off the overly sensitive. And it is ridiculous to give a movie an R rating just for language.

Long-time reader, first-time poster. I always enjoy your commentary, Roger, so I might as well get in on things.

The reason I'm writing in is I'm curious as to whether you're ever turned off by a piece due to excessive profanity. What brought this to mind was an experience I had with my dad and "The Wire," an HBO series that recently ended. That show managed to dig into social issues and show the way society had let us all down, while showing individuals at their best and worst, in ways I found beautiful. But the dialogue was extremely profane. One scene (a favorite of mine, I'll admit) consisted of two detectives piecing together an old crime using nothing but f*ck in all its many variations. I find the dialogue cleverly written, realistic to the people it represents and poetic beyond the profanity. But they do use f*ck a lot. When I tried to convert my dad to a watcher of the show, he couldn't get into it because of the wall-to-wall profanity.

So I'm wandering. Can aversion to the language used spoil what's otherwise good drama?

I'm continually surprised that so many are so offended by the word f*ck and are not offended by many other "curse" or "swear" words used in cavalier manner in movies that earn either an "R" or "PG" rating. I'm speaking of films that use "goddammit" or "jesus christ" without a second thought. These words are at the top of my list of offensive words. I've found no mention anywhere that these words have given people pause when examining "strong language" being used by actors in film. What the f*ck?