Being that two of my JA.O blogmates have posted recently on the topic of super-heroes, I had to throw in my two pfennigs.
A few weeks ago our family acquired (cheap) a copy of the original (Adam West) Batman movie (1966).
Okay, I admit it… I have no taste. I like this movie better than any of the darker, more recent Batman films (except Batman Forever) and it is a guilty pleasure that I have passed on to my kids. They have really enjoyed it. One measure of the success of a film in our house is when we go around for weeks afterward inserting bits of the dialogue into our everyday speech. Batman 1966 qualifies in spades.
The movie is campy, fun, clean, goofy, brimming with Bat-gadgets and fisticuffs, and boasts the greatest cast of Bat-villains ever. Like the classic Looney Toons, the humor of the movie (as well as the series) operates on different levels. As a kid I missed a lot of the grown-up jokes and sexual innuendo, but had a blast, anyway.
For the record, in this film Batman is intensely heterosexual.
The main reason I’m posting on Batman, though, is a scene toward the end of the film, where the President of the United States makes an appearance (more or less… we see his chair and one arm from behind). He sports a generic Texas twang and, though it isn’t really a straight impersonation, it is obviously meant to represent then President Lyndon Johnson.
What’s weird is that, though it doesn’t sound like Johnson, the voice sounds remarkably, uncannily like George W. Bush.
[JIMMY ADDS: If you watch this movie, don’t miss the MUST SEE (!) "Some days you just can’t get rid of a bomb!’ scene. It’s hilarious!]
[JIMMY ALSO ADDS: There’s an interesting episode of the Batman TV series in which they play off Lyndon Johnson’s political misfortunes and the fact that due to his unpopularity he didn’t run for re-election when he legally could have. In this episode, Batman is running for mayor of Gotham City in order to stop a villain from getting the post, and the episode is transparently meant to be a "Batman runs for president" episode under the surface (e.g., they mention the cowboys and indians voting in the western precincts of Gotham City). At the end of the episode, after Batman has won and turned the mayorship over the the guy who really should be mayor, he is in Commissioner Gordon’s office when he receives a phone call from a major, unnamed political party asking him to be their presidential candidate. He politely declines, but he and the commissioner comment on how nice it was of "them" to ask. At this point, we have no idea which party it was that asked, but then Batman gets another call, from the other political party, asking him the same thing, and he replies, "I . . . thought your party already had a presidential candidate for 1968." ZING!]
Mr. Akins, I’m not sure if you know what “dork” means, but I have choked on my coffee.
My question is: does the Batman Movie have the Joker and the villain played by Vincent Price? Those were always my favorites. 🙂
Isn’t this the one with Bat Shark Repellant?
I LOVED that.
–Ann
I always liked Adam West. Of course, the Bat-villains in the TV series were the greatest. I still enjoy the fact that Family Guy has Mr. West playing himself as mayor of Quahog, RI.
Yes, Miss Jean. You are a good, prim and proper lady, so I have to be the one to explain.
I am SICK TO DEATH at seeing the vulgar slang words, “dork” and “freaking,” beginning to appear even on Catholic blogs. How in the world could people not be aware of the following:
(1) “freaking” is so obviously a euphemism for “f*cking” (which word comes to mind every time the milder version is spoken/written).
(2) “dork” (as I well recall from my childhood) was coined as a variant of “d*ck” (slang term for part of the male anatomy), as explained at http://www.wordorigins.org/wordord.htm — and then took on an extended meaning of “stupid person.”
Anyway, folks, DON’T USE THESE BAD WORDS, please.
The 1966 Batman? You must be joking.
When I was in grad school in the early 80s, that movie played at my school. Since I had enjoyed the original TV series when it played back in 1965-66, when I was in junior high school, and had seen the movie back then, I thought I’d take a trip down nostalgia lane. I was bitterly disappointed. Let’s just say that while the producers were moderately successful when they told a story in two half-hour TV shows, aired on successive evenings, they just wasn’t enough there there to sustain a 90-minute movie.
That should have read “there just wasn’t enough there there”
Sorry about that, chief (to hark back to another TV show I watched back in 1965-66).
Folks, it depends on what part of the country you are from. In my experience, “dork” and “dorky” mean kind of geeky and awkward; they are *not* a synonym for “penis.” That is undoubtedly what Jimmy meant.
It was “Shark Repellant Bat Spray”!
By the way, I note that even the page you cited agreed with the meaning for “dork” I said. Just because it *originated* as a slang term for penis does not mean it is used that way today. A similar argument: since the word “excruciating” comes from the same root as “crucifixion,” and means as painful as being crucified, we should not describe pain EVER as “excruciating” because that belittles the sufferings of Our Lord. But that would be foolish, because the word today means “extremely painful” and is not considered blasphemous.
I do agree with you about “freaking,” since it is a blatant euphemism for vulgarity. “Dork” is not.
On topic, I remember vividly being a BIG “Batman” fan when I was a kid, blissfully unaware that it was a campy parody (I was 6-8 years old); that just makes the stuff even funnier when viewing it as a grownup.
I noticed that Tim used the words “Dork” Knight, and not “Dark” Knight. Obviously an attempt to say, “See, I’m not a racist”! But then he unwittingly showed his true colors (pun intended) in his first sentence, by using the word “pfennigs”, former German money under the Nazis.
Where I come from, “dork” has always meant “a nerdy individual”.
But, okay, objections noted for future reference.
In this film, Batman drinks milk from a brandy snifter at a fancy romantic dinner.
Pretty dorky.
Heartily seconded. My mum bought me the ’66 Batman on DVD and it rocks through and through. It’s certainly a lot funnier than most of the TV episodes were, and there are some timelessly inspired bits of comedy in there.
There’s a comic strip called The Dork Tower that makes fun of . . . dorky guys who read comics, play video games, & like SF & fantasy. I’ve never found it to have any references to certain parts of the male anatomy. Everyone I know uses the term to mean a nerd.
To the pure of heart, all things are pure.
I loved the Batman series when I was a kid. It’s like a superhero Get Smart. The cast is obviously having fun.
Me, I prefer the Batman Begins take on the character.
I loved the scene at the U.N. where the ambassadors are dehydrated by one of the villains — reduced to colored pebbles — and someone sneezes.
When the television series was on, I thought of this exchange:
“Look, Robin, an all-beef frankfurter!”
“Wholly cow, Batman!”
Egads!
In my post, I mistakenly said;
“I like this movie better than any of the darker, more recent Batman films (except Batman Forever)…”
Fer the record, I meant to say “except Batman Begins”.
It’s too late now, TimJ.
We know you harbor animosity towards Batman Begins.
My favorite movie is
“Batman Begins…Apologizing for the Last Three Movies.”
Yes! Adam West IS Batman! I love the camp and a superhero that doesn’t take himself so seriously.
Fer the record, I meant to say “except Batman Begins”.
I’m so glad to hear this, Tim! I was beginning to worry. 😉
when in doubt, surf on over to:
http://www.merriam-webster.com
and yes, “dork” is the slang for d*ck here but not freaking…not just at the word origins site.
you can even download the always practically available Merriam-Webster toolbar for your web browser.
What? Nobody here knows that Adam West also plays the Mayor of Gotham City on _The Batman_? Don’t any of you get up on Saturday morning?
As for all these supposed obscene terms… Darlin’, I majored in linguistics. I can probably find you an etymology you won’t like for nearly any word you can name. You really shouldn’t look up the Indo-European roots of “bull” or “cow”.
But that’s not what they mean now, and it would be silly for me to make shocked comments on Jimmy’s blog that his readers are using feelthy words like “Wholly cow”.
So smile at how God turns obscenities into words with harmless meanings. Or start a letterwriting campaign to famous rappers about their rough language. But stop binding burdens on us.
Strange that I have never heard anyone object to someone saying “gosh” or “sheesh” though it seems to me that taking the Lord’s name in vain is far worse that using words that are sexual in nature or origin.
In any case, it seems to me that many of these words, though obviously originally euphemisms, have become seperate from their words of origin, and are now just generic exclamations and such. I am not sure they are even venial sins. Perhaps much depends on what you intend to express?
Jimmy, can you give us the Catholic Answer rundown on bad language? We know that taking the Lord’s name in vain is grave, but what about the other words (which seem to fall into two categories–sexual, and “excremental”) Venial or just crude? And are euphemisms morally equivalent to the actual word?
In any case, it seems to me that many of these words, though obviously originally euphemisms, have become seperate from their words of origin, and are now just generic exclamations and such.
In any event, shouldn’t we be *encouraging* the use of euphemisms? I, for one, would much rather hear people around my office exclaiming “Gee whilikers!” instead of “Jesus Christ!”, which, alas, is what they far too often say (and no, not in a reverent fashion).
James & Seamus bring up something I was going to post earlier but didn’t have the time.
Folks use “darn” rather than “damn” & that’s pretty generally accepted. What’s the difference between that & “freaking” v. the f-word?
Doesn’t it all come down to intent? If someone means to say the f-word when they say “freaking” or “fricking” or “fracking” (for us BG fans), I’d think they would be as guilty as if they’d said the real thing. But if they say it without the intent to say the f-word, there might be a difference, wouldn’t there? What about other world like “crikey” or “rats” or “criminey” (my favorite) or “drat,” etc.
I’d rather hear folks use the mild words, too. But then, I’ve know folks who could use non-swear words & it sure sounded like the real deal because they intended for the word to be a replacement for the real deal. It’s all about intent, it seems to me.
That said, I don’t think the most egregious words could be said with good intent.
What’s freaking wrong with euphemisms anyway? Isn’t it better that people use them rather than say the actual words?
All the scrupulising over this sounds so…protestant.
I am, like, totally FREAKING out over this.
Come on, guys. Everyone should already frikkin’ know that a geek is a dude what bites the heads off of chickens. Look it up!
I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic, but will do/say anything to justify their use of euphemisms (that call to mind the vile words behind them), rather than resolve to amend their lives and pursue the universal vocation to sanctity. I guess that’s one of the reasons for Purgatory, to burn away the love for the vulgar that is found in so many people who responded to me.
The lack of humility among almost all commenters here — and the penchant for kneejerk self-justification and rationalization –are mind-boggling. It breaks my heart to see NOT EVEN ONE person write a message saying, “Thanks, John. I was not aware of what you told us. I will avoid saying ‘dork’ and ‘freaking’ in the future.”
As always, we can ask the question, “What Would Jesus Do?” You can be sure that he would not use foul language or even any euphemisms derived from it it. He would also not use His Father’s name improperly. Ditto for His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI. Let’s follow these role models, instead of making bad role models of ourselves.
PS to James: It doesn’t matter what “Jimmy” says on this, because I have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’) improper behavior. Although “Jimmy” knows lots of facts, he is definitely no guru for Catholics’ behavior.
Are we all excommunicated then, Bishop John?
I think you’re supposed to bring the sin before the community of the faithful before you throw us out with the tax collectors…
PVO
Wow. I just came back to see if anyone answered my question about what villains appear in the ’60s Batman movie. Instead, I find that I’ve started a bashing. I’m so sorry. I just thought it was funny that Mr. Akins innocently used THE forbidden word of my childhood because Dad and our veteran neighbours knew it from their Army days. (OT, currently at the homestead, we are trying to teach the youngest nephew – age 7 – not to refer to himself as a “pimp” just because he has a lot of girl playmates. And yet we can’t explain what the word really means. But perhaps in 20 years no one will use it in a sexual way, eh?)
Incidentally, I’ve learned never to tell my Australian friends that I’m “rooting” for them when I wish them well. For similar reasons. 🙂
Anyway, sorry again. I didn’t mean to cause any harm and wasn’t really chiding Mr. Akins.
BTW – Can SOMEONE tell me if the ’60s Batman Movie have the Joker and the villain played by Vincent Price? 😉
John, might you consider that you’re being scrupulous, and that you could possibly be wrong to some degree?
BTW – Can SOMEONE tell me if the ’60s Batman Movie have the Joker and the villain played by Vincent Price? 😉
It does have The Joker but not Egghead(Vincent Price)
My favorite movie is
“Batman Begins…Apologizing for the Last Three Movies.”
There were four.
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
Batman and Robin
Or were you not including the first film?
“I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic…”
We should come up with a Catholic equivalent to Godwin’s Law, except it would be about how long it takes before somebody in the thread declares that those who don’t agree with them are not “True Catholics”.
“John” is a euphemism for a toilet. so is “head”
With a teaser like the one Jimmy offered, I had to come and find the discussion. Now I admit that I have a scruple with “bloody” (as handy and fun as it can be in the right spot) because I was told it was the sloppy derivative of the oath, “by Our Lady.” True or no, it’s ruined for me.
My daughter was also horrified when I referred to a gang of girls last summer as “skanks in tanks.” She said I had no idea how foul that term was.
For the mostpart now, I just stick to standard English. Who knows what one can be saying otherwise (pax Maureen).
gsk: I too have heard that ‘bloody’ is a euphemism for ‘By Our Lady’, dating from the days when Catholics in England where persecuted for their faith.
gsk: I too have heard that ‘bloody’ is a euphemism for ‘By Our Lady’, dating from the days when Catholics in England where persecuted for their faith.
What I’d heard was that “bloody” and “bleeding” were references to the blood of Christ, and was therefore profanity.
More recently, though, I read somewhere that that supposed origin of the term was just a myth.
I still find it pretty hard to use the expression casually, though.
+J.M.J+
Many years ago, when I was in Evangelicalism, the leader of our youth group passed out something written by a certain Fundamentalist minister. This minister was of the opinion that Christians should not only avoid taking the Lord’s Name in vain, but that it is even a sin to use euphemistic terms like “gosh”, “golly”, “jeepers creepers” or “criminy” because they were derived from God’s Name!
This stayed as a question in my head for many years, until a few years ago when I asked one of the experts at the EWTN experts forum whether it was a sin to use the above euphemisms. He replied that it was not a sin to use those euphemisms and that the fundamentalist preacher who claimed it was did not have the benefit of the Catholic Faith and therefore was making things up from his own head (something to that effect).
FWIW.
In Jesu et Maria,
In the States, bloody doesn’t have the same conotation or impact as in the Isles. My wife moved to New Zealand from the US when she was a young person, and once informed her teacher that a classmate had a bloody nose.
The teacher icily remarked that she should NOT have used that word, and that New Zealanders refer to that condition as a “blood nose” or a nosebleed.
I’m rolling my eyes so far into my head that I can barely see the computer screen.
By this logic, Jiminy Cricket, Walt Disney’s conscience-bug, should’ve been banning Pinochio from saying his name. After all, isn’t it used as a euphamism for the name of our Lord?
Ahh finally found the comment that was in question.
Here’s a tip for you, a fool who keeps silent is viewed as wise.
Oh and if you must speak, have your facts straight.
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordord.htm
“Dork
Popular etymology would have it that this American slang term comes from a term meaning a whale’s penis. That is half right.
The term did originally mean a penis, but human not cetacean. This slang sense dates to at least 1961 and is probably a variant on *unprintable word beginning with the letter d* or dirk (another name sometimes used to personalize the phallus). The sense meaning a stupid or obnoxious person follows a few years later, 1967.”
So 1961 it meant one thing and by 1967 it meant another. Ancient origin my foot. (oh an that is a euphamism too)
I’ve been a lurker on this blog for a while now, but this is so rediculous I have to say something.
I agree with Gene in that its all about intent: if a toddler, having never known the meaning of a word, hears someone casually say “f*ck” then repeats it three weeks later casually, is that toddler sinning?
Now, granted the toddler carries a degree of ignorance (hopefully) not found on these forums, but my point is that Ive always used the word dork to mean awkward and geeky, and I use it most often in self-depreciation. My intent is certainly not to call anyone a d*ck, nor will it be even after discovering its roots.
What makes vulgar words vulgar isnt the word itself but the idea conveyed by the word: f*ck takes a beautiful God-given act and makes it vulgar and cheap. There is no longer any vulgar idea conveyed by the word dork except by those who make it so.
Out of respect for your ideals, John, I wont say it to you or anyone else offended by it. But if my using a word with a 40-year-old innuendo in an innocent, modern fashion causes you to question my Catholicity, then allow me to help you with that wooden beam.
-El