Sunday, November 21, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Essay 2 Feedback
Level 4
Explanation/analysis/argument (16-20 marks)
Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question in excellent fashion and make connections in order to present a coherent argument. The answer offers a clear, fluent balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts and informed personal engagement with issues and debates.
Use of examples (16-20 marks)
Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are clearly connected together in the answer. History and the future are integrated into the discussion with conviction.
Use of terminology (8-10 marks)
Throughout the answer, material presented is informed by contemporary media theory and the command of the appropriate conceptual and theoretical language is excellent.
Complex issues have been expressed clearly and fluently using a style of writing appropriate to the complex subject matter. Sentences and paragraphs, consistently relevant, have been well structured, using appropriate technical terminology. There may be few, if any, errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar.
Lock Stock Essay
This essay will look at Lock Stock as a cultural product, which reflects what was happening in British society in the 1990s. Some critics argue that the film reflects the ‘crisis’ in British male identity while others would say that the film is just a film, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino.
Steve Chibnall (2008) argues that Lock Stock is a 'gangster light' film, which means that it is unrealistic and has no depth to the characters. This is achieved through the plot being over the top to support its comedic side to a dark plot of money, drugs and murder. I believe that the director got his inspiration from the typical 'British' gangster, being blunt, sarcastic and emotionless however there are not many people like that. I think that the director had his characters be like this to show that men are not easily fazed by gruesome murder scenes and that men who watched the film should be inspired in a way to be a typical man, not the 'New Man', able to show his softer side, portrayed in most 90's films. This supports the view of Mary Wood (year) who wrote; " The film, 'reflects the moment of 'new laddism', representing an aggressive reaction to feminism,". This is a negative view on the film as she is saying that the director is showing an aggressive approach to the recent feminist change in the film industry and in society. It is true there are only three women in this film, and all play a passive role, which supports Laura Mulvey's (year) theory of the 'male gaze' in film. The female parts in this film are a pole dancer, card dealer and a drug addict. These parts for women could be considered as degrading as they are being used as 'objects' such as the half naked pole dancer in the background being stared at by two men. This shows that women are in the film to only look good and attract the men, and I believe that this has been done as the film's target audience is men and not women. The pole dancer supports Mary Wood's view on the film as an aggressive approach towards feminism as it shows women back in the role of pleasing a man and his desires. The card dealer in this film I believe to have a less passive role than the other two women in the film as she seems to be in-charge of the men around the table with her at the start of the card game saying for them not to her muck around. This gives her a more dominant persona, as it seems like how a mother would tell her child to stop mucking around. This I think goes with the cultural identity at the time, as I believe that older women in the 90's where more respected by most types of men and would be listen to. [REMOVE, no evidence to back this up] This does not support 'Laura Mulveys' idea of the 'male gaze' as she is still playing a passive role but she is not there for the men to look at but more for the men to obey and listen to, this could be argued to represent the female dominance and power of the time. Women had become more self reliant rather than relying on men to be the dominant sex. The third woman in this film is the drug addict who is not easy to define as either a challenge to or in support of Mulvey's male gaze theory because, the first time she appears in the film she is needing support from a man to just help her stand up. This show male dominance as the man is looking after the women, the cultural side to this is that men have been made to think that they are the protectors of women, this scene also shows women to be the weaker sex as she is having to have help for the male character. I believe this to be for Mary Woods statement of an aggressive approach towards feminism as it portrays females negatively.
In the nature vs. nurture argument it says that people are either born with their own identity, which is the nature aspect of this debate, but in the nurture part of the argument it is said that the media and people around you influence the formation of your identity. I think this debate can be used as port of the dicsussion of Lock Stock and male identity as the men in is this film seem to show the ideal way to be without the gangster violence bit. This means that the audience especially men might try to change their own identity to fit in with what the film is saying men should be like. This would suggest that the media has an effect on someone’s identity and how they act towards others. This could also effect little changes in things like, clothing style and hairstyle as people in the film are dressed in smart suits and they seem to be respected by others. Described a Gangster Light by Chibnall (2008) The film has been criticised for containing violence that has no consequences and making it all seem like a bit of a joke. The concern is that audiences would be influenced by this emotionless gangster lifestyle and try to emulate the seeingly very cool gangster actions. [insert critical quote here]
David Gauntlett (year) would argue that media effects theories carry very little weight and so I would argue that any claim which supports the idea of the media having a powerful influence over male identity, should be treated with caution.... go on to discuss his main
concerns with media effects here....
Theodor Adorno's (year) idea that the media has huge power over audiences is also part of this debate on the power of the media over male identity. According to Adorno, the film would be dangerous because it shows masculinity in its extreme form and a normal audience member watching this would think that is how masculinity should be - exciting, male dominated, violent, powerful and stylish, and therefore that is is how it should be in everyday life. This means that they would be changing their identity to what they think is the correct way in which men should behave. However, Fiske (year) would argue that people have a choice in whether they copy what they see or be completely different and challenge the masculine traits in the film. I believe that most people would look at how the characters are in the film and know that in real life it is un-likely to find people with that type of character, but there are people like this in the world. This means that the film has not changed the identity of the viewer but has given them an insight into what a gangster life could be like.
I believe that the film was not influenced by society and that it didn't influence the behaviour at the time because, there are some people that would change their identity after watching this film because they may think that it is the way men should be like, however i believe that the majority had believed that it was just another comedy with a gangster theme to it. Society at the time was not like this as many men respected women and treated them equally so i believe that the film was the inspiration of the director. Talk about what gangs crime in London was really like at the time here.....
The film represents males as very blunt, un-emotional and sarcastic in serious situations. This I believe, is not a statement the director wanted to make about masculinity but he felt like he had to make the characters like this, to make the film funny. It's because they are involved in ridiculous situations and behave like there are no rules, that the film is funny and interesting. It's an escape from reality. The reality in the 90s was that the time of gangsters as celebrities had long gone, it was no acceptable to see violence as the only solution to a problem and women had for some time demanded to be treated as equals in work and in the home. [INSERT argument from the viewpoints of ADORNO AND FISKE here]
I believe that the impact of Lock Stock's message of male identity is minimal, as it is a comedy and not to be taken seriously. I also believe some people seek to find too much information in one text rather than to consider it alongside other texts from the time. Or just to watch and enjoy it.
List references in alphabetical order here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
What does the film Lockstock and 2 Smoking Barrels (Guy Richie 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990’s?
This essay will look at Lock Stock as a cultural product, which reflects what was happening in British society in the 1990s. Some critics argue that the film reflects the ‘crisis’ in British male identity while others would say that the film is just a film, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino.
Steve Chibnall (2008) Lock Stock is a gangster light film, which means that it is unrealistic and has no depth into the characters. This is done through the plot being over the top to support its comedic side to a dark plot of money, drugs and murder. I believe that the director got his inspiration from the typical 'British' gangster, being blunt, sarcastic and emotionless however there are not many people like that. I think that the director had his characters be like this to show that men are not easily fazed by gruesome murder scenes and that men who watched the film should be inspired in a way to be a typical man, not the 'lovey dovey' man of the men in most 90's films. This supports the view of 'Mary Wood' who said " The film, 'reflects the moment of 'new laddism', representing an aggressive reaction to feminism,". This is a negative view on the film as she is saying that the director is showing an aggressive approach to the recent feminist change in the film industry. To support this view there are only three women in this film who play a passive role, which supports 'Laura Mulveys' theory of the 'male gaze' in film. The female parts in this film are, a pole dancer, card dealer and a drug addict. These parts for women are partly degrading as they are being used as 'objects' such as the half naked pole dancer in the background being stared at by two men. This shows that women are in the film to only look good and attract the men, however I believe that this is been done as the films target audience is men and not women. The pole dancer character I believe to support Mary Wood' view on the film of the aggressive approach towards feminism as it shows a women back in the role of pleasing a man and his desires. The card dealer in this film i believe to have a less passive role than the other two women in the film as she seems to be in-charge of the men around the table with her at the start of the card game saying for them not to her muck around! This gives her a more dominant persona, as it seems like how a mother would tell her child to stop mucking around. This I think goes with the cultural identity at the time, as I believe that older women in the 90's where more respected by most types of men and would be listen to. This does not support 'Laura Mulveys' idea of the 'male gaze' as she is still playing a passive role but she is not there for the men to look at but more for the men to obey and listen to, this shows the female dominance of the time and the cultural change in the film industry and reality and how women have become more self reliant rather than the view of women relying on men to be the dominant sex.
This i believe goes against 'Mary Wood' remark of the film being aggressive towards feminism. The third women in this film is the drug addict who I believe does and doesn't support 'Laura Mulveys male gaze' theory because, the first time she appears in the film she is needing support from a man to just help her stand up. This show male dominance as the man is looking after the women, the cultural side to this is that men have been made to think that they are the protectors of women, this scene also shows women to be the weaker sex as she is having to have help for the male character. I believe this to be for 'Mary Woods' statement of an aggressive approach towards feminism as it puts females in a bad view and a weak view.
In the nature vs. nurture argument it says that people are either born with their own identity, which is the nature aspect of this debate, but in the nurture part of the argument it is said that the media and people around you form your identity and not yourself. I think that the film Lock Stock can be compared with this argument as the men in is this film seem to show the ideal way to be without the gangster violence bit. This means that the audience especially men might try to change their own identity to fit in with what the film is saying men should be like. This proves that the media has an effect on someone’s identity and how the act towards others. This could also effect little changes in things like, clothing style and hairstyle as people in the film are dressed in smart suits and they seem to be respected by others.
This film i believe to be able to support Adornos view on the media having the power over the people. This i believe because this film shows masculinity in its extreme form and a normal audience member watching this would think that how masculinity is portraid in the film is how it should be in everyday life. This means that they would be changing their identity to what the think is the correct way in which to act. However it does also supports Fiske's view of people having a choice in wether the copy what they see or be complete different and dismay the masculine trait in the film. I believe that most people would look at how the characters are in the film and know that in real life it is un-likely to find people with that type of character, but there is people like it in the world. This means that the film has not changed the identity of the viewer but has given them an insite of what gangsters in Britain are like. I believe that the film was not influenced by society and that it didn't influence the behaviour at the time because, there are some people that would change their identity after watching this film because they may think that it is the way men should be like, however i believe that the majority had believed that it was just another comedy with a gangster theme to it. Society at the time was not like this as many men respected women and treated them equally so i believe that the film was the inspiration of the director.
The film show masculinity to be very blunt, un-emotional and sarcastic in serious situations. This I believe is not what the director wanted to show masculinity but he felt like he had to, to make the film funny. I believe that the message of male identity is minimal in this film as it is a comedy and not to be taken seriously and that i believe people to be looking to much into the film rather than just to watch and enjoy it.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Essay 1 Feedback
Good first attempt at an A2 essay! Not easy I know. I would like you to add the detail about Karl Marx and the Revolution that never happened. This then links to Adorno's idea that the audience had become too passive to revolt. Remember the main issue Adorno had was with PASSIVITY and the audience not even knowing they were being controlled by the media into accepting what was on offer and believing they had a choice. Add this in.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Media power vs People Power
In my essay I will be discussing the theories of Theodor Adorno and John Fiske and their views on ‘media power’. There are many other theorists who have study the effects of media on the audience but these two represent the complete opposite viewpoints of the debate, so they are the best two to use in this instance.
Adorno (September 11, 1903-August 6, 1969) came from Germany and was a member of the Frankfurt School of social theory along with Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and others, these where all intellectuals. Adorno fled Germany in the 1930’s to America during the time of the rise of Nazi Germany. Adorno then went on to write a book with Max Horkheimer called ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ which contains the essay ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’. Both the writers had the view that the media had more power over the people. Adorno had called the ‘media industry’ the ‘culture industry’.
John Fiske is a media scholar who was a Professor of Communication Arts at the university of Wisconsin-Madison. He was born in 1939 in Britain and he graduated from Cambridge University. He had written 8 books in total such has ‘Power Plays, Power Works, Reading the Popular’ and ‘Understanding Popular Culture’. Fiske does not agree with the notion of ‘the mass audience’, which Adorno argued to believe instead Fiske believes that the audience are individuals and have unique tastes.
Adorno’s argument was that people (the audience) did not have their own culture but that they followed what the media had given them. A modern example to support Adorno’s argument is a band called ‘Axes of Awesome’ with their ‘4 chord’ song. In this song the band is able to put in nearly every hit music song and jumble them up but only use ‘4 chords’ to do this. The point in this song is that there is no difference between music types but that they all follow the same formula. Fiske’s argues that ‘the audience’ has a certain influence on the music that is produced by the media organization. He believes that ‘the audience’ has an identity and a choice of which type/genre of music they purchase and that not all music is the same. A modern example of this is Madonna and how her music changes frequently due to the trends at the time. Many people like Madonna for her ability to change styles and her type of music, this is a choice made by her fans, however some don't like every type of music she does and will choose not to support her by not buying her albums. This supports Fiske's view however Madonna changing her genre of music to suit the trends means that she is not being different and she is only singing what the media company want her to, this also supports Adorno's view on media culture and how the media is the 'Culture industry'.
Adorno was surprised when he arrived in America because of all the media productions that the people had just taken in, he was surprised of this because in Germany media was mainly fine arts and theater whilst in America it was cinema and broadway which Adorno believed to be all the same. A modern example to back this up is in the film 'Swordfish' where 'John Travolter' at the beginning basically says that hollywood just makes everything the same where there is always a happy ending for the good guy in the films. This supports Adornos idea of the media being a machine and just churning out the same thing time after time. This means that the audience does not have a say in what is produced and the story line of the film, but instead are lead to believe that the film is different and does not follow the same format of every other hollywood film. Fiske on the other hand believes that the people have the choice to watch or not watch the film's produce by hollywood and that there are different genres to the films just like in the music industry. Fiske's argument is that media is not all the same but does follow the same formula however the audience have the choice of what type of film they watch and how they like it to end.
In my opinion i believe that Adorno and Fiske have both got a very persuasive argument with many factors supporting their opinions and beliefs of the media, but i believe that it is impossible to determine who is write and wrong as the views of every person varies from people who believe in Adorno's view and people who believe in Fiske's view. I think that media does repeat a lot of the time but there are times where something new comes along something different wether it be in films or music from a film point of view you have the horror films such as 'Halloween' even though there have been many remakes which links in with Adorno's view, the good guy in it doesn't always win and it does not follow the conventional role of modern hollywood films which goes against Adorno view. This is mainly down to the director being more creative with his films. In the music industry you have many different genre types from heavy metal to R&B and they are they complete opposites so this is in more of Fiske's favour however many R&B songs have the same tune to it or talk about the same thing which proves Adorno to be right.
In conclusion Adorno and Fiske both have views on the media but believe in different things and I believe that Adorno is right in saying that the media does have power over the people as many people are subliminally persuaded by the media to buy things which they believe to be different such as music. Although I believe Fiske is right in saying that not all music and films are the same, and that people are individuals. I think that this argument will be continuous as people will always think and like different things and no-one will be the same as the next person.