MovieChat Forums > The Ghost Train (1941) Discussion > Racism Thrown In As Comedy

Racism Thrown In As Comedy

posted 16 years ago by Niro
31 replies | jump to latest

Incredible that the writers would have thrown in a "gag" about Hitler and the horrors perpetrated on millions, but especially on the Jewish, with the following dialogue at approximately 18 minutes into the film:

Tommy Gander [to Ms. Bourne's caged parrot]: "I say, I wonder if I could teach you to talk. I wonder if you could say 'Heil Hitler.' Eh? No, not with a beak like that."

I found most of Mr. Askey's alleged "comedy" in this film to be dated and not remotely funny (even for the time period) but this was an all-time low -- particularly as WWII was still raging.

And before anyone says, "But the play was written in 1938 and we didn't yet know the extent of the Nazis' atrocities," the "joke" could only have been directed toward Jews.

Perhaps I shouldn't blame the writers, as this might in fact have been one of Mr. Askey's standard stage bits which he asked them to include. At any rate, it was racist then, is racist now and was completely unnecessary.

I also added this into IMDb's "Quotes" section, for those who don't read the forums.

PS: Not that it could possibly matter, but I'm a Gentile.

[–] mlraymond 16 years ago

I have been puzzled by this odd joke ever since I first watched the movie. But there may be an explanation for it, one that isn't obvious to American viewers sixty odd years after it was made.

When music hall comedian Tommy Gander chats with the parrot, and wonders if he could teach it talk by saying " Heil Hitler", it was probably meant as an anti-Nazi joke, that the wartime British audience would have found funny, by comparing Hitler's followers to a bunch of parrots mindlessly repeating Nazi propaganda slogans.To compare someone to a parrot is usually seen as an unflattering reference, that the individual is just talking without really having anything of importance or originality to say.

The Jewish reference to the parrot's beak is arguably in bad taste, but could be seen as the final kicker to the earlier part of the joke. From what little I know about English music hall entertainment, it was often considered to be pretty low class and slightly vulgar, so the arguably anti-Semitic comment might be seen in that context also.

And when he crossed the bridge, the phantoms came to meet him

[–] StrawberryLynn 11 years ago

No, you've simply got your microscope out, looking for something "racist"

[–] Davart 9 years ago

That's what it looks like to me too ... some ignorant lib looking to cry racist.

[–] beaubrummie 15 years ago

Get real,he was taking the pi sh out of Hitler,or is that racism in it self.The film mocked Hitler in a jovial manner.Some races of people have characteristics that set them apart from others (scandinavians tend to have blond hair & are white).
I thought the film was good & entertaining,if people see racism in the film I hope they don't go for a swim cos the chip they are carrying will sink them.

[–] smerd_70 15 years ago

"And before anyone says, "But the play was written in 1938 and we didn't yet know the extent of the Nazis' atrocities," the "joke" could only have been directed toward Jews."

Why would anyone say that since the play was written in 1923?

I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.

[–] Royalcourtier 10 years ago

Why do you people conclude that the joke is a reference to jews? Or that it is racist. It is neither. It is simply a Hitler joke. Why do you find Hitler jokes offensive, I wonder.

[–] Royalcourtier 10 years ago

Actually the play was written in 1923. However Arnold Ridley did not write the Hitler jibe, that was added for the 1941 film. Just as the Arthur Askey jokes were added for the film.

There is no racism in this film. The jibe about Hitler is no more racist than the jokes Americans have made in the last two decades about Saddam Hussein. Their jokes about Osama bin Laden, however, usually are racist, often extremely so. Furthermore there are absolutely no references to jews in the film.

[–] thehumanfly 15 years ago

Incredible that the writers would have thrown in a "gag" about Hitler and the horrors perpetrated on millions,

Even more incredible when you consider that the film would've been shot in 1940, before concentration camps and gas chambers, before the eastern front, before the bombing raids on Britain had started in earnest. Unless you think writers should be psychic?

I found most of Mr. Askey's alleged "comedy" in this film to be dated and not remotely funny (even for the time period)

I agree. I've never found him particularly funny.

but this was an all-time low -- particularly as WWII was still raging.

World War II had barely started. When this film was shot/released the war was just starting to escalate, many of the big players had not even started fighting (America, Russia, Japan - against the west). It was far from "still raging", more like "just beginning".

And before anyone says, "But the play was written in 1938 and we didn't yet know the extent of the Nazis' atrocities,"

Someone else has already stated the play was written in the 1920's. But no, the British people in 1940/41 did not know the extent of the Nazi atrocities, because the Nazi's themselves had not started committing atrocities (on a large scale). As I said, there were no death camps or gassing of families. There was racism and discrimination, which is atrocious, but not an actual atrocity. The British people would've had very little idea how poorly the Jews were being treated in Germany.

the "joke" could only have been directed toward Jews.

No, the joke was directed at the Germans. It stated clearly that the Germans were Parrots with their "Heil Hitler's", and that they were racist with their superficial Nazi Aryan ideas. Yes, alluding to the stereotype of the Jewish nose was in poor taste, but totally in keeping with the era, and the butt of the joke was still very much the Nazis.

At any rate, it was racist then, is racist now and was completely unnecessary.

You cannot judge the standards of the past with the standards of the present, it's a complete waste of time. It was what it was and times have changed. Referencing the Jewish nose whilst making the joke about the Nazis at a time before the concentration camps had started gassing them (the British public only found out about them after the German surrender in '45) was pretty darn mild for the times, and the joke itself was spot on - the Nazis were Parrots and if you weren't Aryan you weren't wanted.

[–] paulgeaf 15 years ago

thehumanfly - well answered!
You really have left me with nothing more to add, except that I have nothing more to add.
Too many people cry racism when it isn't necessary...

GeaF

[–] jprhedd 15 years ago

"the Nazi's themselves had not started committing atrocities "

Dude, study history. All the dead Jews and those who were beaten in the street, robbed by the subhuman race of Aryans hadn't committed atrocities? With that kind of thinking you too would have ended up in the camps. Sigh.

[–] thehumanfly 15 years ago

Dude, study history

Dude. I know my history as well as anybody. As I said:

"The British people in 1940/41 did not know the extent of the Nazi atrocities, because the Nazi's themselves had not started committing atrocities (on a large scale)"

Keywords: "On a large scale". Yes, there were bad things happening, but they were nowhere near the level they would be during the war. Once the Nazis had invaded Russia with their policy of 'total war', then the scale of human cruelty against people like the Jews escalated.

All the dead Jews and those who were beaten in the street

Yes, and once again, I said:

"There were no death camps or gassing of families. There was racism and discrimination, which is atrocious, but not an actual atrocity."

By which I meant, clearly, that what came later caused what came before to pale in comparison. Nobody would even try to argue that including the Jews who were there.

With that kind of thinking you too would have ended up in the camps

That statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, both the hypothetical premise and literally.

robbed by the subhuman race of Aryans

And with that, you lose me. You fail. The 'Aryans' are not sub-human; nor are Caucasians as a whole; nor are Jews, Africans, Asians, etc. They are ALL human. By thinking that one group is not, you yourself think like a Nazi. Whatever point you were trying to make is swept away by your own display of racism.

[–] richard.fuller1 10 years ago

It should be noted that both Niro,the original poster, and the 'dude' poster, jphrdd, or whatever it was, haven't bothered responding or acknowledging what anyone else has said.

[–] callraise200 13 years ago

You do know jprhedd that any point made after you start a post with "dude" is null and void. Nobody is going to listen to what a Bill & Ted wannabe says!

[–] planitrth 14 years ago

your not a gentile your an idiot.......

[–] cheval_52-1 14 years ago

In reference to the Beak Controversy

I really didn't think that the Beak Comment was in reference to the Jews as it could have been more directed to the English. I mean, just look at some of the English Noses throughout History like Sir Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington), or even present day to Prince Charles.

I would think that the Jews would count their blessings to not have some of the more notorious Noses to have come out of the British Empire.

Cheval_52

[–] webboffin_jw 14 years ago

They didn't have political correctness lobbyists thankfully in 1941. And you interpreting a Tommy Gander's dialogue with the parrot as anti-semistic is as you say your own interpretation and not the verified intention in the film.

[–] MikeAnsaraFan 13 years ago

We werent so touchy in those days.

[–] PopperTheKungFu-Dragon 8 years ago

Yup.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried