Flying Fuck (1932)?

[James Harbeck]

>This is a joke, right? I mean, the censors "let it pass" because it containe=
>d=20
>no objectionable words, not because one could not imagine objectionable=20
>words--or unobjectionable words--filling the gap.

It doesn't make much humour or dialogic effect,
though, does it, if what's being abruptly cut off
isn't something that ought not to be said.

There's a well established tradition in plays and
movies of a line being cut off just before an
impolite word or suggestion. From a scriptwriting
perspective (something that I, as a PhD in drama,
may be able to offer to this discourse), you
don't cut off a line just any old where. There
are pragmatic maxims in scriptwriting too, only
even more so, as a script is a deliberately
constructed text with purpose in every part, and
just as a gun on the mantle in act one will be
fired in act three, an interruption will have
some reason for being, too; it must have
relevance and information value, or why did you
put it there?

If a cliché is cut off -- and if it weren't a
cliché at the time, it would be like having him
say "They said you could go saw a..." which would
just leave the audience confused -- there has to
be a reason for it to be cut off. One common
reason, and the one that readily suggests itself
here, is that what is cut off is something that
ought not to be said. This is a fairly well
established bit of dialogue schtick, and it
resembles a similar bit of humour from songs,
where a naughty word is suggested by a rhyme but
a different word is substituted, or the next line
is abruptly begun. You create an expectation of
something impolite, and then you cut it off, so
that you don't actually say it, but in so doing
you create a humorous moment. That _Scarface_ is
not a comedy does not make it immune to this sort
of scripwriting technique; snappy dialogue is
valuable in all genres, and in something that
portrays the criminal classes, it allows one to
portray their vulgarity without actually using a
vulgarity.

The case here in no way resembles "You will,
Blanche, you will" because a) there is no set
phrase or cliché here, and b) no one is being cut
off. If, in the movie, Rhett had said "Frankly,
Scarlett, I don't give a--" and Scarlett had cut
him off with "Rhett!" it would have been an
example of this; instead, they creted a sensation
for the time by actually using the word "damn."

None of which proves that the phrase "take a
flying fuck" is what was intended. But it is good
evidence for the next word in the phrase being
impolite. A scriptwriter worth his salt would not
not have, for instance,

A: Now, if you don't mind, I have to go see a man about a --
B: Alright, already!

[where "dog" is intended]

or

A: He thinks it's a brilliant transformation, but
I think it's like putting lipstick on a --
B: Never mind!

[where "pig" is intended]

unless something previous in the script has made
mention of dogs or pigs somehow taboo or
undesirable or otherwise impolite (for instance,
if character B had had a bad encounter with a dog
or a pig).

So our next question here would be whether "take
a flyin' leap" could have been seen as impolite
at the time. Admittedly, to go so far as to
suggest that the next word would be "fuck" might
have been quite something for 1932. But if the
next word were not something impolite, from a
scriptwriting perspective, it would be hard to
justify the cut-off as it is unless the second
speaker had some other perceptible reason to cut
him off, e.g., he was being garrulous and
tiresome.

James Harbeck.

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org