“The reason some drugs are legal and
other’s not has almost nothing to do with science or health or the relative
risks of the drugs. It has almost everything to do with who uses and who’s perceived
to use particular drugs” – Ethan Nadelmann[1]
What
are the underlying values and ideologies in ‘Channel 4’s Run: Richard’ and how
does this compare to American texts on the same subject?
The war on drugs is a revolutionary aspect
that has travelled throughout history into today’s society and has become a
prominent theme within the mass media. It is clear that the media is the prime
driving force for the ever-changing representation of drugs, through the
constant shift in how it is conveyed across
both print and film platforms. This is evident through the alternative
depiction of drugs depending on one’s social class or ethnicity. Thus, one
could infer that the media use the theme of ‘drugs’ as tool to be labelled with
specific social groups to reinforce dominant ideologies associated with them,
leading to moral panics (Stanley Cohen). Also, it is noteworthy to recognise the
drastic alteration of the representation of drugs depending on where the text
is produced, for instance the United Kingdom in conjunction with the United
States. This can be examined through the social realistic text produced by
Channel 4 in 2013, “Run: Richard”, which outlines the struggles of a black
recovering heroin addict and captures Britain’s informative approach to the
theme. This juxtaposes with several films from the US, which in more recent
years demonstrates their more liberal and “freedom of the individual” approach.
However, this ‘liberal’ approach hasn’t always been at the forefront and this
essay will establish how this representation has changed over time. As well as
this, we will uncover the reasoning behind the correlating approaches to the
theme of drugs depending on where and who produces the text.
‘Run’ is a British mini-series that was
created by Jonathan Pearson, Marlon Smith and Daniel Fajemisin-Duncan, which
follows the lives of ‘four gritty no holds’[2] and presents their daily
battles of survival in London. The film was produced by Acme films who are
renowned for their innovative and contentious product style, derived from their
core objective of ‘seek[ing] to represent the reality, drama and diversity of
contemporary urban life’[3]. The ‘hardly-sugar coated’[4] narrative was the first to
be written by Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, who both grew up together in Brixton
and ‘want[ed] to tell [their] version of south London’[5] Thus Acme films and
newcomers Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, paired perfectly together in creating an
honest depiction of the social realistic genre, through sharing the same
intentions.
The episode ‘Richard’, conveyed by
Lennie James, was the third of the four interlinking stories and was aired on
the 17th July 2013, watched by 1.39 million UK viewers[6]. The narrative itself outlines
the ‘struggles [a heroin addict faces] to stay clean’[7], whilst having to readjust
back into society and res-establish a relationship with his teenage daughter. The
sensitive sub-narrative of Richard’s strive to regain contact with his daughter
adds vulnerability to the character often depicted as a social outcast. James
demonstrated a keen interest in partaking in the gritty narrative: “Before I’d
even read the script I’d said yes.”[8]– having too, grown up in
Brixton. This therefore indicates the
accurate and fair representation that the directors, Acme films and James, wanted
to elicit through the character ‘Richard’.
Prior to the ‘Richard’ episode being
aired, Channel 4 released two additional clips, via the website, allowing
audiences to mildly connect with the characters. The text is primarily aimed at
a B-D demographic of 18-55 year olds. Due to the explicit narrative, it is fair
to say that a niche audience from the ‘Struggler’, ‘Reformer’ and ‘Explorer’
psychographic groups would be the dominant consumers, as they would be most
enticed by the social issues moulding the narrative, such as urban life, drug
abuse and dysfunctional families.
The first of the two clips which will
be discussed is ‘Hope’[9], which is a dialogue
between Richard and his mother. The clip is set with tungsten blue lighting
creating a natural aesthetic in the working class café. An audience are introduced
to the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type (social realistic
convention) and the lack of maternal instincts that the mother has towards her
son. The handheld camera alongside the diagetic background noise of the market,
reiterates the lifestyle that follows the D and E demographic social class. The
conversation is exchanged through medium close ups of the mother, in comparison
with the more extreme close ups of Richard’s lifeless and penurious face. One
could connote this to be the director’s deliberate choice of forcing an
audience to engage and build a personal relationship (Uses and Gratification,
Blumler and Katz 1974) with the protagonist (Spheres of Action, Propp) to then
embody his emotions: “You don’t believe I’m off it, do you mum?” The
non-diagetic sound of the slow instrumental arises, heightening this emotion
and is thus parallel to the unfortunate uncertainty of the mother’s response,
symbolising a lack of hope that is on
Richard’s side.
In terms of Medhurst’s ‘shorthand for
identification’ theory, the stereotypical family type and relationship that an
audience are presented with, provides them with a greater understanding as to
why Richard started using – possibly, due to the lack of a father figure, reinforcing
prevailing social ideologies. By Channel 4 using this scene as one of the ‘teaser’
clips, one could imply that they envisioned for the audience to build a sense
of empathy towards the recovering ‘heroin addict’ that is often scrutinised
within society and across news mediums.
In particular, one must recognise
that not all British institutions are willing to display the moral issues
associated with drugs and users, as they instead depict it as deviant behaviour.
This is clear through The Sun, a tabloid newspaper known for their
controversial celebrity scandals, news story: “Tulisa’s Cocaine Deal Shame”[10] The title was plastered
on the front page in block capitals and featured a small photograph of drug
paraphernalia, amplifying the criminality of the story. The use of the noun
‘shame’, in terms of the Hypodermic needle model, passively reinforces the
deviancy and embarrassment associated with drug scandals. Alongside this,
another example of the Sun savouring off of a celeb-scandal is through the
story about late Amy Winehouse in 2008: “Amy on Coke”, where the main image consisted
of covert footage of the “socially intolerable” act, taking place – “Winehouse
smoking on a crack pipe”[11] Through the news institutions incorporating celebrity
news that is ‘unexpected’ (Galtung and Ruge 1973) and breaks out of the status
quo, shows their underpinning interest in increasing their readership, whilst
stemming audiences away from condoning drug use.
Interestingly, in both the UK and US the
news mediums present drugs in a similar way, often depicting the unfortunate
deaths of young people through taking drugs such as MDMA. The Daily Mail[12] is at the forefront in
ensuring that this moral panic is executed upon their domain audience, including
parents (25-55 year olds) creating the imagery that reverts back to 1936
‘Reefer Madness’ – “Tell your children [to stay away from drugs or they will
end up dead]” Lydia Lee comments on this drug hysteria within the news
describing it as “an effort to make society conform [by presenting] biased
messages to the public telling them drugs are harmful and immoral”[13]. Therefore, it is clear that representation of
drugs within the news media is to maintain hegemonic control through audiences fearing
them.
Furthermore, Channel 4 relays the
harsh and constant confrontation that addicts have with their past, as shown in
‘Old Haunts’[14],
containing the binary opposition (Levi-Strauss 1958) between Richard and his
ex-drug dealer. The scene begins with a medium long shot of a black tinted
Audi, reversing back, beside Richard, who appears nervous for their upcoming
encounter. The dealer then states: “Old man Rich” – the use of the nickname
‘Rich’, implies close relations, however the adjective ‘old’ almost acts as a sign
to reassure an audience that he has been clean for a long time. The dealer’s, [Michael], direct approach in instigating
conversation, as shown through the medium close ups of him looking directly at
Richard and questioning him “Have you seen Jon Jon?” (fellow heroin addict), is
portrayed through the stillness of the shot, in contrast with the slight
wobbles that compliment with the uneasiness felt by Richard, as the camera
reverts to his response. This discomfort is emphasized as the dealer asks: “Do
you have a line, just in case you make a turn?” in which Richard responds
shaking his head “I’m alright, but thank you” – satisfying an audience that he
is attempting to make a change. The diagetic dialogue finalises with the dealer
stating “You’ll get hungry soon, you lot always do” and then drives of. His use
of ‘hungry’ resonates animalistic imagery personifying the recovering addict
and detracting all of his humanity. Interestingly, by Channel 4 using this as
the other short clip, it is hard to refute that they want an audience to embark
upon the recovering addict’s emotional journey and to refrain from the norm of
labelling him as a “junkie” or the scourge of society.
Channel 4 is grounded with the core
brand values of creativity, innovation and diversity[15] and in previous years
have been scrutinised for being “responsible for introducing generations of
youngsters to drugs”[16]. However, it is fair to
say that their representation has detracted from glamorisation and instead
presented the harsh brutality that follows drug addiction, as presented through
the social issues in ‘Richard’, 2013 and even earlier in ‘The Big Drug Debate’[17] in 2006.
Hosted by opinion leader and ex
heroin addict, Russell Brand, the debate is comprised with 16-55 year olds,
featuring some recovering addicts and drug users. The final part of the programme
revolves around Heroin and is the part which will be discussed to prove the
informative approach that the institution has when displaying drugs.
The scene preludes with an extreme close
up of a thermal effect capturing heroin being burnt which then reverts to a
series of empty, desolate locations set on a working class estate. Parralel to
the non-diagetic voice over of the heroin dependent [Samantha] arises, the
medium long shot captures the wind blowing two empty swings, symbolically
suggesting the lack of existence associated with the addict due to her
consumption of the drug. The underclass proletariat mise-en-scene is
complimentary to the narrative and lifestyle of a heroin addict – bare, through
the lack of colour.
In regards to Richard’s costume, each
shot finds him wearing the same clothes from a fixed palette of khaki’s to
grey, which blend in with the urban landscape around him, titling his identity
as non-existent and almost background noise. He too often embodies a strong
sense of isolation and disparity, through his lethargic body language and
posture. This sombre illustration, in both fictional and non-fictional texts,
proves Channel 4’s de-glamorisation approach in representing drug culture
through showing the damaging social effects.
Pre 9/11 texts such as Danny Boyle’s
1996 ‘Trainspotting’ arguably has a more ‘glamorous’ appeal to the drug experience.
The black comedy was “shown at least twice by Channel 4… [And] had influenced
[viewers]”[18]
Andrew Lowe describes Boyle’s ‘Trainspotting’ as “neither a pro nor an
anti-drug film. It’s an honest and unsentimental attempt to document the highs
and lows of a dependent lifestyle”[19] This is apparent through
metaphorical journey of a ‘comedown’, which Boyle, undeniably translates,
through the equilibrium state (Todorov) of the user’s beginning their
consumption, towards the disequilibrium state presenting the misfortune of
addiction.
An audience are able to identify this
sequence (equilibrium state) through the immediate scene set in “Mother
Superior”, the dealer’s, house which is painted with vibrant fuchsias, yellows
and greens, which would encompass their regular act of taking a ‘hit’. The
over-the-shoulder shot of the women receiving a hit from the male is
overshadowed by the diagetic description of Renton, the protagonist, describing
heroin as ones: “best orgasm times by a thousand and it’s no way near”. The vivacious
colour effectively mirrors the euphoria of the sexually presented drug intake
and detracts from the explicit effects of drug abuse.
This compares significantly with the monotonous grey-scaled path of temptation that is unravelled in ‘Richard’, such as counselling sessions, being evicted from hostels and bumping into fellow addicts. It is fair to say, that ‘Richard’ addresses the more social problems revolved around drug abuse, as oppose to the detailed effects that arise from the drug. In addition, the directorial approach differs between the two texts as shown in ‘Richard’ through the scene of addicts in dirty room encrusted with mould and ‘junkie’ paraphernalia. The shot is low lit with minute natural lighting peeking through the curtains reiterating the isolation that drug addicts live in. This portrayal encompasses the social defects of living as an outcast and being a drug addict; there is a strong absence of leisure and joy that was intensively depicted in Trainspotting, showing the underpinning interest that the directors of ‘Richard’ wanted to elicit – social problems of drug abuse.
However, the animated representation in Trainspotting of the drug experience juxtaposes with the scene of the grotesquely soiled toilet[20] that Renton submerges his face into, contrapuntal to the classical music, canvasing his eagerness for his next hit. Another example of Boyle accentuating the lows of a dependent is through the scene set in Renton’s bedroom where the wide angle shot exposes the psychological panics that follow withdrawal symptoms. The bedroom acts as a metaphor of his erratic mind state, shown through the constant rapid zooms and unorthodox imagery, e.g. medium long shot of a dead baby crawling on the ceiling. Thus, despite the equilibrium sexualisation of the drug, the dis-equilibrium state heightens the brutal effects that follow it. Similarly, in the US text directed by Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 (pre 9/11), ‘Requiem for a Dream’, this surrealistic imagery is conveyed, through the character of Sara – an elderly women addicted to diet pills, as she reaches her comedown state. This is shown through the canned laughter that accompanies the terrifying trip of her delusional wellbeing e.g. the medium close up of the TV shouting at her.
Furthermore, ‘Reefer Madness’ which is a 1937 American propaganda exploitation film about drugs, is a credible example of the drug moral panic that existed in the US prior to 9/11. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and was originally titled “Tell Your Children” and financed by a church group, intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale. Interestingly, despite 2015 containing less propaganda films, one could argue that these messages still remain subliminally through the news mediums discussed above.
The film itself begins with a news style bulletin of a note to the audience apologising for the “upcoming menace [which is] destroying American youth”, followed by several close ups of drug related news articles. The shot reverts to a white male of an A demographic, with the profession of a teacher/professor, exclaiming the dangers of Cannibas onto the passive (Hypodermic Needle Model, Adorno) and naive early 20th century audience. The scene resembles imagery of the dictatorship within the government associated with politicians and the drug laws. Initially the ‘dictator’ has his back turned to an audience, shown through the medium long shot, and was addressing the parents, which suddenly reverted to a medium close up of the male facing the viewer directly, placing an audience into the seats of the parents. The aesthetic of the shot resembles a news style documentary which is enhanced through the scene changing, to high angle shots of marijuana fields and exposing the ‘menacing’ content.
Through the style of editing it is
clear that the text intended to educate a 1930’s audience, however, a 21st
century audience would consume this text differently. This contrasts immensely
with the approach in drug representation in ‘Richard’ where they present it to
an audience with mild exposures of the brutality of drug consumption as well as
the intense social effects that it can have one’s self and being, without
marginalising social groups (shown through the ethnic diverse group of
recovering addicts). Ultimately, in Reefer Madness the dominant reading (Stuart
Hall) of drugs is a largely negative one involving the youth, enforcing a moral
panic around the two correlating oppositions – Cannibas and the youth.
Nevertheless, Post 9/11 has witnessed
an incredible evolution of the representation of drug culture, especially in
the US. From the 1980’s fixating upon the films such as ‘Scarface’ and Columbian
protagonist ‘Tony Montanna’s’ social climb with the drug cocaine, which is “mobile
and a symbol of status” Consequently painting the representation of cocaine
drug distributors as Columbians. Alongside this, the American television
series, ‘Miami Vice’, which reinforced the relationships between “The
Columbians with cocaine, the Jamaicans with cannibis and the Haitians with
voodoo and hallucinogens”[21] It seems as though the
American film industry have now taken a break on labelling specific races with
drugs and instead are liberal in depicting narratives circulated around drugs,
such as the 2013 ‘Wolf of Wall Street’, which reinforces existing patriarchal
ideologies and celebrates drug use tying it hand in hand with success (with
women and business). All of which drastically compare to Britain’s refrainment
of labelling social groups with drugs and instead portraying the harsh
realities and consequences that subside them, which is due to their more social
realistic genre as oppose to Hollywood budget entertainment products.
To conclude, it is clear that there
is a irrefutable connection between the representation of the text depending on
the social context within the origin of the text. Both human activist Russell
Brand from the UK and Ethan Nadellman from the US have highlighted the issue
revolved around drugs and the fact that “the war on drugs must end”[22]. In regards to the US,
Nadellman makes extensive reference towards intense relationship between race
and drugs and how dominant ideologies are set in stone and how this is relayed
within television to reinforce and marginalise these groups. And more
interestingly, Russell Brand’s documentary portrays Britain’s more conservative
attitude towards drugs, thus explaining the representation of ‘Richard’. In
some ways it is as though ‘Richard’ is very similar to ‘Reefer Madness’ serving
as reverse psychology, presenting audiences with the negative effects without
scrutinising the drug itself, in hope that we will feel mournful as the new
‘fear’ to refrain from partaking in drug culture, ultimately allowing the
bourgeois to maintain hegemonic control.
Word Count: 3,160
[1]
Nadelmann, E. (2014)
Bibliography -
Acmetv.co.uk,. Acme Films. Retrieved 2 January
2016, from http://acmetv.co.uk/
Awford, J. (2015). A 17-year-old collapsed and died
after 'taking MDMA' on playing fields. Mail Online. Retrieved 6
January 2016, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3096363/Brilliant-teenager-17-collapsed-died-taking-MDMA-playing-fields.html
BBC,. (2012). Russell Brand: End the Drugs War -
BBC Three. Retrieved 6 January 2016, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v2zrg
Beyer, J. (2000). TV Shrinks drug responsibility. Broadcast,
5, 15.
Channel4.com,. C4 - 4 Careers. Retrieved 3
January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/4careers/about_values.html
Channel 4,. (2006). The Big Drugs Debate.
Retrieved 3 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-drugs-debate/on-demand
Channel 4,. (2013). Run - Episode 3. Retrieved
2 January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/on-demand/53615-003
Channel 4,. (2013). Run - S1-Ep3: Hope.
Retrieved 2 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-hope
Channel 4,. (2013). Run - S1-Ep3: Old Haunts.
Retrieved 3 January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-old-haunts
Dams, T. (2000). An injection of realism. Broadcast,
14, 14.
IMDb,. Run (TV Mini-Series 2013). Retrieved 2
January 2016, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2297604/
Lee, L. (2015). Drugs in the Media: The production
of Hegemony (1st ed.). Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate
Sociology Student Journal.
Murphy, R. British cinema (p. 410).
Nadelmann, E. (2014). Why we need to end the War on
Drugs. Ted.com. Retrieved 2 January 2016, from
https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs
Rahim, S. (2013). Run, Channel 4, review. Telegraph.co.uk.
Retrieved 2 January 2016, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10180944/Run-Channel-4-review.html
SCHLESINGER, F. (2008). Drug dealers to the stars
'plotted to catch Amy Winehouse smoking crack pipe on film'. Mail Online.
Retrieved 3 January 2016, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094215/Drug-dealers-stars-plotted-catch-Amy-Winehouse-smoking-crack-pipe-film.html
Stevenson, J. (2000). Addicted (p. 207).
[London]: Creation Books.
Vine, R. (2013). Lennie James: 'I said yes before
I'd even read the script'. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2 January
2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10174666/Lennie-James-I-said-yes-before-Id-even-read-the-script.html
Walker, P., & Collier, H. (2014). Tulisa
Contostavlos trial collapses as judge criticises Sun's Mazher Mahmood. the
Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/21/tulisa-contostavlos-trial-collapses-sun-mazher-mahmood
Wang, O. (2006). "Miami Vice" by ONC Wang.
Ejumpcut.org. Retrieved 6 January 2016, from
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC33folder/miamivice.html
Wikipedia,.
(2013). Run (TV series) - Episodes. Retrieved 2 January 2016, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_(TV_series)#cite_not
No comments:
Post a Comment