JR Ewing: Too Offensive For 2020? Part I

[Kenny Coyote]

Had Dallas never aired until now, and were to begin airing in its original form, as a show set in 1978, would JR Ewing be too offensive for audiences in 2020? Would people today be able to handle JR Ewing and enjoy the character for what it is, or would they be "offended" and "outraged"?

I'm sure that most people would be able to enjoy the character for what it is, realize that Dallas is a piece of fiction, and have the mental wherewithal to realize they have the choice to either watch or not watch, depending on if they enjoy the artistic vision of Dallas.

I wonder though, if there would be a small group of people who would be so self-righteously indignant at the antics of a fictional character that they would try their best to make sure that not only would they never watch Dallas again, but to also try to make sure that nobody else could watch Dallas either, whether through economic boycotts or other means.

It wouldn't be enough for them to just choose to not watch. They would want to ensure that @Kenny Coyote cannot watch Dallas, that @Snarky's Ghost can't watch Dallas, that @Jimmy Todd can't watch Dallas, that @Lastkidpicked can't watch Dallas and so on, because that small yet highly vocal minority would be convinced they know best what we should be able to watch, what we shouldn't be able to watch, and that Dallas (primarily because of the character JR Ewing) would fall into the category of "That which must not be watched."

In 1978, that would be unthinkable, but we've seen society change exponentially since then in some questionable ways. Those of us who grew up in the era when we were taught "sticks and stones my break my bones but words can never hurt me" would have no problem whatsoever with Dallas airing. They wouldn't all choose to watch, but they wouldn't try to ensure nobody could watch it.

People weren't so afraid of ideas then. They were more confident in their own ability to decide for themselves, what is a good TV show, what is a funny joke, and what is distasteful enough to them that they'd choose to not watch that show or not tell that joke. What they wouldn't do is try to get someone's career ended for telling a joke they find distasteful or try to get a show taken off the air because of their terrible "outrage"over it. It was a more hardy generation of people.

Who would be the people deciding whether or not anyone should be able to watch this brand new show named Dallas in 2020? It would be those people you would least want to make that decision. Why? Because sensible people wouldn't have anything to do with that. People who are power mad, who gravitate to that domain, to exercise their controlling power over the entertainment choices of other people would be making that decision, or trying to get to make that decision. It's the people who believe "we know better than you do what's good for you" that would be trying to get Dallas thrown off the air.

I picture a journalist asking one of the TV executives of Dallas: "What makes you think that your creative vision for your show (especially that deplorable character) and your freedom of speech trumps other people's rights to not be offended"?

I envision the answer going something like this:

TV Executive: "People who find the character JR Ewing to be offensive or the entire show to be offensive have the choice to not watch. Nobody can make them watch Dallas if they don't want to, so there is that choice. If Dallas is taken off the air, what choice do the people who do enjoy watching it have? None.

Isn't it better to have a choice as to whether or not you'd like to watch a show than to have someone else decide for you that you cannot watch it? Who are they to presume to know better than you what is good for you and what is not? What made them the arbiters of good taste? As far as I know, all people were created equal, so let them all have equal choices to either watch or not watch. The market will dictate whether our show lasts beyond this five episode mini-season we're in the midst of right now and comes back in the fall for a full 22 or 25 episode season."

Journalist: Hold on a minute, did you say "25 episode season"? Who does that?

TV Executive: We do, or at least we plan to.

Journalist: Nobody has the attention span to stay interested in a show that has a season that goes on for 25 episodes!

TV Executive: Then you have nothing to fear, do you? You see, we believe in allowing the market to dictate whether or not our show succeeds. It's not you, it's not your website, it's not your little hashtag movement that decides, it's the market that decides whether a show succeeds or does not. If a sizable enough audience tunes in to Dallas over the next couple episodes of our mini-season, and returns next fall, and they find it so compelling that they feel like they can't miss an episode, then we've got an economically viable product and it stays on the air. Who knows, they might like it so much that we end up lasting another 350 episodes! Ha ha! It'll be fun finding out, won't it?

Journalist: (rolls eyes) Oh, yeah, right. Seriously though, isn't allowing the market to dictate whether Dallas continues to air or not irresponsible? What kind of standard is JR Ewing setting for the general populace? The way he treats women is reprehensible!

TV Executive: Uh, you do get that he's a fictional character designed to entertain people - not to teach people how to live, don't you?

Journalist: What about the people who think he sets a good example and may try to emulate him? If misogynistic behavior escalates over the next year, won't Dallas have to shoulder the blame?

TV Executive: (laughing too hard to answer right away) Shoulder the blame? No, of course not. That would be absurd to think that our audience isn't made up of sentient beings who make their own choices as to how they live. They don't let a TV character dictate that for them. Now, is it possible that some people will be offended or even outraged over some of the things we have planned for that character? I certainly hope so.

Journalist: Hold on, did you say you hope so? You hope so! Why would you say such a socially irresponsible thing?

TV Executive: That's your idea, that it's socially irresponsible. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's certainly not my opinion and I doubt it's the opinion of the vast majority of the populace. My opinion, not just my opinion, but my fervent belief is: To be able to say anything important, you must risk offending. Without risking offending, you can't say anything about anything important. Important speech, especially about important, contentious issues is bound to offend someone.

End Of Part I

 

[Swami]

I'm not sure if drama would be as badly affected by comedy. Certainly here in the UK, for years we had the finest sitcoms and comedy actors & writers in the world, but political correctness and a section of people who simultaneously go out of their way to take and cause offence have combined to virtually write British comedy off as a credible force.

Ironically, when you look at some of the drama that gets the go-ahead now, original Dallas is very tame in comparison, I would struggle to think of anything that would have caused offence. At the end of the day you have to remember it is fiction, like the standard line "any resemblance to real persons is purely coincidental" that accompanies all shows' credits.

For all JR's excesses and machinations, at the show's peak there were lines JR did not cross, plus he was given the redeeming qualities in his loyalty to his parents and John Ross.

Swami

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Larry said something about there being an idea of bringing back DALLAS as a series in the late-'90s after the first reunion movie did well. But that the executives at CBS now demanded that JR be cured of his misogyny. Or else.

At least, that was Larry's story.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

This is an excellent and thought provoking thread started by @Kenny Coyote! It touches not just on Dallas but also social trends, freedom of speech, and ultimately the freedom to think critically.
The problem with any kind of censorship is that it is always a slippery slope. Once it's okay to ban certain words or ideas because some find them offensive, it becomes okay to do that to anything because someone is always offended by something. What it always comes down to is not what's right or wrong, but who controls the narrative in society at the time.
During the 60's, 70's and 80's tv shows were aired according to time slots. Shows that were not "family friendly" were on later, 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. when theoretically more mature people were up that late and could recognize that a character like JR Ewing was not to be imitated. This all became a moot point with the advent of cable t.v. Every type of show was available at any time. It was harder, but not impossible, for parents to monitor what their children watched.
The question you ask, Kenny, is often applied to All in the Family, which imho, was an excellent show. It used words and behavior that would definitely offend people, but the message of the show was always clearly that racist or sexist behavior is wrong. It still offended people, but it brought important issues to the forefront, and allowed viewers to think about them.
My experience and observations have shown me that quite often the crowd that doesn't want certain things said aren't as interested in the offensive nature of them, but more to present themselves as superior to anyone who disagrees with them. It seems rooted in pride more than a sense of justice.
If Dallas was around today JR would be able to get away with certain behavior he couldn't in the 70's and 80's, but he definitely wouldn't be able to get away with other things that his character did get away with. It's a reflection on society and which groups have the most influence on the collective narrative.

 

[lbf522]

As I have said, Larry Hagman and the writers were careful not to make JR over the top evil and gave him some redeeming qualities. Its Bobby who was this mindless hothead and resorting to violence that some would have a problem with as I did during the series run.

 

[bmasters9]

At the end of the day you have to remember it is fiction, like the standard line "any resemblance to real persons is purely coincidental" that accompanies all shows' credits.

Akin to this, from Hart to Hart in '83?

 

[Rove]

But that the executives at CBS now demanded that JR be cured of his misogyny.

To hear CBS demand the character of JR be changed defeats everyone. Look what occurred with JR during the course of Lorimar Dallas. Many posters here have lamented the weakening of the character during those final last years. I'm not advocating JR always winning but positioning the character in a vegetative state while others rode rough shot over him left many viewers confused.

 

[CeeCee72]

JR would have no problem existing on TV today. There have been much worse characters who have done much worse things. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch who have come since him (Vic Mackey on "The Shield," Tony Soprano, the whole cast of "The Wire," and "Breaking Bad," and "Deadwood," and "Oz" and "Game of Thrones"). Yes, some of those have been off the air for a while, but they would thrive today (and GOT just ended last year).

JR was bad, but not as bad as those guys. Now...some of this behavior wouldn't have been accepted with such a lackadaisical additude (raping Laurel for instance) but it still would have gotten on the air and probably would have been even more graphic.

Having said all that - it probably would have done better on cable than on broadcast TV.

 

[bmasters9]

I'm sure that most people would be able to enjoy the character for what it is, realize that Dallas is a piece of fiction, and have the mental wherewithal to realize they have the choice to either watch or not watch, depending on if they enjoy the artistic vision of Dallas.

Which is why I allow others to have every freedom whatsoever in whatever shows are in their DVD collections of shows, including Dallas-- I may not care for many shows on now (I prefer the classics), but that's just me; others truly enjoy what's on now, and they should indeed have that freedom.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

JR would have no problem existing on TV today. There have been much worse characters who have done much worse things. Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch who have come since him (Vic Mackey on "The Shield," Tony Soprano, the whole cast of "The Wire," and "Breaking Bad," and "Deadwood," and "Oz" and "Game of Thrones"). Yes, some of those have been off the air for a while, but they would thrive today (and GOT just ended last year).

JR was bad, but not as bad as those guys. Now...some of this behavior wouldn't have been accepted with such a lackadaisical additude (raping Laurel for instance) but it still would have gotten on the air and probably would have been even more graphic.

Having said all that - it probably would have done better on cable than on broadcast TV.

Well if you recall the circumstances, he never forced Laurel to have sex with him. He said that if she had sex with him he would do a favor for Clayton and if not, he wouldn't, so it was totally her call. Rape isn't defined as a situation where the victim has the opportunity to decline.

 

[Billy Wall]

JR DID rape a couple of women on Dallas if I recall. I remember JR forcing himself on a few women, including Sue Ellen.

 

[CeeCee72]

Well if you recall the circumstances, he never forced Laurel to have sex with him. He said that if she had sex with him he would do a favor for Clayton and if not, he wouldn't, so it was totally her call. Rape isn't defined as a situation where the victim has the opportunity to decline.

If the choice is either lettering someone you care about rot in jail for a crime he didn't commit or give into sex, that's not a choice at all. And it IS rape.

Many forms of rape come with "choice."

Have sex with me, or I'll kill you. That's a choice.

Have sex with me or I'll fire you. That's a choice.

Have sex with me or I'll throw you and the kids out of my house. That's a choice.

Have sex with me or I'll destroy your reputation, career, family, etc. Those are choices.

All rape.

And what JR did to Laurel was rape too.

 

[Brian Kinney]

If Succession with a family who are all terrible human beings can exist why not a J.R. Ewing today? Even network TV (Fox) has a serial killer as a co-lead in Prodigal Son who gets more love from the viewers than his crime fighting son.

 

[Toni]

Again, I think the problem with the Laurel Ellis "sex blackmail" (as it was that), is that the storyline was super-lame. They put upon us the Laurel girl by ripping off the plot of Jock with Julie Grey from the early days. Then JR´s henchman happened to be Jessica Fletcher and found out the truth in one episode only (if I remember well), and JR used it to sleep with Laurel and improve his image in front of the family, especially his mother. A good storyline would have been to have Shulton killed earlier, and then Laurel shipped off to England (or wherever the bonsais girls are born). Clayton is arrested and trialed, and then convicted of his murder. In the season finale, MacSween finds the evidence to accuse Laurel´s ex (the real culprit), and JR puts it in a drawer. Will he use it or not? Next season we´ll know. Come the new season starting with a big trial and someone in a coma. Wouldn´t this have been better than what we got (Sue Ellen didn´t shoot JR)?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Many forms of rape come with "choice."

Have sex with me, or I'll kill you. That's a choice.

You do see a difference between committing murder and saying "I won't don't a favor for your friend" don't you? The initiation of physical force on someone is a felony, especially to the point of murder. Not wanting to do a favor for a friend isn't a crime. Depriving her of her right to live is! If she'd said no and he'd murdered her, he'd be tried for murder - not rape. Specificity matters.

There was no initiation of physical force in this situation. Laurel could have said no and absolutely nothing would have happened to her. For all she knew, he was bluffing and he had no evidence that would help Clayton. Why would she find him credible? Clayton said it turned out that they found out the man died of being suffocated, so he wouldn't have been found guilty anyway.

Have sex with me or I'll fire you. That's a choice.

She could say no and if he fired her, he'd be liable for sexual harassment or something of that nature which is also a crime but not rape. Again, specificity matters, especially in dealing with legal matters.

 

[CeeCee72]

You do see a difference between committing murder and saying "I won't don't a favor for your friend" don't you? The initiation of physical force on someone is a felony, especially to the point of murder. Not wanting to do a favor for a friend isn't a crime. Depriving her of her right to live is! If she'd said no and he'd murdered her, he'd be tried for murder - not rape. Specificity matters.

There was no initiation of physical force in this situation. Laurel could have said no and absolutely nothing would have happened to her. For all she knew, he was bluffing and he had no evidence that would help Clayton. Why would she find him credible? Clayton said it turned out that they found out the man died of being suffocated, so he wouldn't have been found guilty anyway.



She could say no and if he fired her, he'd be liable for sexual harassment or something of that nature which is also a crime but not rape. Again, specificity matters, especially in dealing with legal matters.

There are many methods of force that don't inide physical violence. Anyone who believes the use of physical force is necessary to commit rape doesn't understand what rape is.

There are degrees of rape of course. Even the law recognizes it. Rape that includes physical harm is classified as first degree and is the most heinous. But other methods of force are also recognized as rape under the law.

And honestly, if you believe a woman faced with losing her job and her ability to put food on her table for her children or keep the lights on in her home while she attempts to get "justice" through the civil courts is a "choice," then again - I'm not sure you understand what rape is.

It's rape. And the law recognizes it as such.

Just ask Harvey Weinstein.

But I have veered too far off the original topic so that's all I have to say about it.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

There are many methods of force that don't inide physical violence

There are, but some are legal and some aren't. When someone initiates force in a way that infringes on someone's rights, that's illegal. To use that type of force that results in someone having sex against their will, such as because they don't want to be killed, is rape. There is no choice there other than for the victim to have her rights infringed on one way or the other. If she gives in to the man, it's rape. If she refuses and he shoots her, it's murder.

JR was offering to do a favor for her friend, in exchange for sex. She could have sad no and none of her rights would have been infringed as a result. That's why I don't think it meets the definition of rape.

And honestly, if you believe a woman faced with losing her job and her ability to put food on her table for her children or keep the lights on in her home while she attempts to get "justice" through the civil courts is a "choice," then again - I'm not sure you understand what rape is.

There was clearly something cruel going on there, but just because something is cruel doesn't necessarily make it rape. I think it does a disservice to the women who actually have been raped, to use that same word to describe what went on between JR and Laurel. It would broaden the definition of the word so much as to render it meaningless. We've got a enough words in the English language so that we can have specificity in our speech, so that when someone says something, you should be able to know exactly what they mean or they haven't expressed themselves well. Trying to broaden definitions of words is an attempt to take away their precision. Removing precision from language is an invitation to create misunderstanding, because then nobody knows for sure what is being said. I like to try to eliminate misunderstanding by using the precise words that convey my thoughts.

To get this back on topic, think about this statement: To be able to say anything important, you must risk offending. Without risking offending, you can't say anything about anything important. Important speech, especially about important, contentious issues is bound to offend someone.

Look at the conversation we've just had. You've certainly been willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth by saying things like: "I'm not sure you understand what rape is." If we didn't have free speech, if instead we had "freedom to not be offended" then we wouldn't be allowed to have this conversation. If you're not allowed to do that, you're not allowed to think. Your thoughts or my thoughts could potentially violate someone's hypothetical right to not be offended. Fortunately, no such right exists, which makes it possible for two people, both in pursuit of the truth about something, with neither having a complete grasp of the truth, to both work towards arriving at a better understanding of what the truth is.

 

[thomaswak]

Everything is too offensive for 2020.
I am so sick of ultra sensitives PC millennials who want to cancel everything they dislike.

 

[Swami]

Again, I think the problem with the Laurel Ellis "sex blackmail" (as it was that), is that the storyline was super-lame. They put upon us the Laurel girl by ripping off the plot of Jock with Julie Grey from the early days. Then JR´s henchman happened to be Jessica Fletcher and found out the truth in one episode only (if I remember well), and JR used it to sleep with Laurel and improve his image in front of the family, especially his mother. A good storyline would have been to have Shulton killed earlier, and then Laurel shipped off to England (or wherever the bonsais girls are born). Clayton is arrested and trialed, and then convicted of his murder. In the season finale, MacSween finds the evidence to accuse Laurel´s ex (the real culprit), and JR puts it in a drawer. Will he use it or not? Next season we´ll know. Come the new season starting with a big trial and someone in a coma. Wouldn´t this have been better than what we got (Sue Ellen didn´t shoot JR)?

Sounds better than the original although that whole JR/Laurel thing was hard to swallow. For all JR's capabilities, he overstepped the mark on that occasion.

Swami

 

[CeeCee72]

There are, but some are legal and some aren't. When someone initiates force in a way that infringes on someone's rights, that's illegal. To use that type of force that results in someone having sex against their will, such as because they don't want to be killed, is rape. There is no choice there other than for the victim to have her rights infringed on one way or the other. If she gives in to the man, it's rape. If she refuses and he shoots her, it's murder.

JR was offering to do a favor for her friend, in exchange for sex. She could have sad no and none of her rights would have been infringed as a result. That's why I don't think it meets the definition of rape.




There was clearly something cruel going on there, but just because something is cruel doesn't necessarily make it rape. I think it does a disservice to the women who actually have been raped, to use that same word to describe what went on between JR and Laurel. It would broaden the definition of the word so much as to render it meaningless. We've got a enough words in the English language so that we can have specificity in our speech, so that when someone says something, you should be able to know exactly what they mean or they haven't expressed themselves well. Trying to broaden definitions of words is an attempt to take away their precision. Removing precision from language is an invitation to create misunderstanding, because then nobody knows for sure what is being said. I like to try to eliminate misunderstanding by using the precise words that convey my thoughts.

To get this back on topic, think about this statement: To be able to say anything important, you must risk offending. Without risking offending, you can't say anything about anything important. Important speech, especially about important, contentious issues is bound to offend someone.

Look at the conversation we've just had. You've certainly been willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth by saying things like: "I'm not sure you understand what rape is." If we didn't have free speech, if instead we had "freedom to not be offended" then we wouldn't be allowed to have this conversation. If you're not allowed to do that, you're not allowed to think. Your thoughts or my thoughts could potentially violate someone's hypothetical right to not be offended. Fortunately, no such right exists, which makes it possible for two people, both in pursuit of the truth about something, with neither having a complete grasp of the truth, to both work towards arriving at a better understanding of what the truth is.

One in five women and one in wenty+one men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. On average, there are 433,648 victims of sexual assault in the United States every year.

As a woman who has survived a sexual assault where physical force was used, I have never felt anyone has done me a "disservice" by standing up and calling other forms of rape out for what it is, nor have I ever felt I have been done a "disservice" by having cases of sexual coercion prosecuted as rape. Quite frankly, the only time I, as a sexual assault survivor, have felt that I was being done a "disservice" was when excuses have been made to justify a rapist's actions or when I have had had to stand up and defend a rape victim against someone who belittles her trauma because she wasn't physically harmed.

I am in no way a feminist, but the inability of many men to understand that sexual coercion is rape does get under my skin.

If your ability to make a living is threatened, if someone you love is threatened, that's rape.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Everything is too offensive for 2020.
I am so sick of ultra sensitives PC millennials who want to cancel everything they dislike.

Somewhere along the line, their parents failed them big time!