“The reason some drugs are legal and others 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” [1]
The war on drugs is revolutionary issue that has
travelled throughout modern history into today’s society and become a prominent
theme within the mass media. It is clear that the media is the driving force
for the ever-changing representation of drugs, through the constant shift in how
they are conveyed across both print and film platforms. This is evident through
the alternative depiction of drugs depending on one’s social class or ethnicity
and the origin of the text. Thus, one could infer that the media act as the
moral entrepreneur’s[2]
in using the theme of drugs to be labelled with specific social groups, such as
ethnic minorities, to then reinforce negative ideologies associated with them. Additionally,
the dominant reading and panic associated with drug use is “that [they] can kill
you”[3]
However, it is noteworthy to recognise the alternative
representation of drugs depending on where the text is produced, for instance the
United Kingdom in comparison with the United States. This can be examined through
the social realist text produced by Channel 4 in 2013, ‘Run: Richard’, which conveys
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 approach to the
genre, such as ‘Wolf of Wall Street’ 2013, and ‘Limitless’ 2011, all in which
display different male protagonist’s engagement with drugs with mild inferences
towards the damaging effects, but mostly presenting audiences with a comical
and enjoyable cinematic narrative. However, this liberal approach hasn’t always
been at the forefront and this essay will establish how this representation has
changed over time, through looking at the 1936 propaganda text ‘Reefer Madness’.
As well as this, we will uncover the reasoning behind why and how Britain present
audiences with the harsh brutalities associated with drug consumption. In
addition to establishing how the US’s approach has changed and is similar to
the UK’s.
‘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’[4]
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. This is derived from their core objective of ‘seek[ing] to represent the
reality, drama and diversity of contemporary urban life’[5].
The ‘hardly-sugar coated’[6]
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’[7]
Thus Acme films and newcomers Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, paired perfectly
together in creating an honest depiction of the social realism 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[8].
The narrative itself outlines the ‘struggles [a heroin addict faces] to stay
clean’[9],
whilst having to readjust back into society establish a new 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 who is 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”[10]–
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’, which
rewarding resulted in “characters which we got to know instantly”[11]
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[12]
groups would be the main 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’[13],
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 realism convention) and the lack[14]
of maternal instincts that the mother has towards her son. The handheld camera
alongside the diegetic background noise of the market, reiterates the lifestyle
that follows the D and E demographic social class[15].
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 in terms of Blumbler
and Katz’s Uses and Gratification[16] theory, with the protagonist (Vlamidir
Propp’s Spheres of Action[17]).
To then embody his emotions: “You don’t believe I’m off it, do you mum?”, reiterating
post-colonialist theory by Alvarado’s that black people are often characterised
to evoke pity[18]
upon audiences and in this case, the fourty-something year old recovering
addict does this. The non-diegetic 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.
Furthermore, with reference to Medhurst’s ‘shorthand
for identification’[19]
theory, the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type that an audience
are presented with, provides them with a greater understanding as to why Richard
may have started using as “illegal drug use is usually associated with
dysfunctions manifested in [the] family” Thereby reinforcing the prevailing
social ideologies in regards to different family types and the functionality
that exists in nuclear families. 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”[20]
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[21],
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”[22] Through the news institutions incorporating
celebrity news that is ‘unexpected’, in
regards to Galtung and Ruge’s news values[23],
that 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[24]
is at the forefront in ensuring that this moral panic is executed upon their primary
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]” It is as though the “newspapers… [carry] lurid stories
about the new epidemic and plague”[25],
to inject fear upon audience to maintain power. 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”[26]. Therefore,
one could argue that “the war on drugs is doing more harm than the drugs
themselves”[27],
as it is weapon used by leading bodies to maintain hegemonic control.
Furthermore, Channel 4 relays the harsh and constant
confrontation that addicts have with their past, as shown in ‘Old Haunts’[28],
containing the binary opposition[29],
addressed by 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 is shown
through the stillness of the medium close ups as he directly looks at Richard
asking questioning him “Have you seen Jon Jon?” (fellow heroin addict). This
contrasts significantly with the slight wobbles that compliment with the
uneasiness felt by Richard, as the camera returns to his response. His
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 diegetic 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. Similarly, this imagery is transparent across print
platforms where drug users are described as “snorters and tokers”[30],
diminishing their entire persona and objectifying their character.
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[31]
and in previous years have been scrutinised for being “responsible for
introducing generations of youngsters to drugs”[32].
However, it is fair to say that their representation has detracted from
glamorisation, as research proves that “no respondent said TV presented a
positive image of drug taking”[33]
And instead, it can be argued that Channel 4 in particular have 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’[34]
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. And it has been said,
“TV coverage seems to be especially effective in projecting and sustaining a
negative image of heroin”[35]
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. Parallel to the non-diegetic
voice over of the heroin dependent [Samantha] arises, the medium long shot
capture 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. Similarly, the
urban aesthetic reflects the imagery found Simon Wheatley’s[36]
2010 photographic series capturing drug culture amongst British youth and Grime
artists, echoing the social demographic of those associated with the drug
consumption.
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]”[37]
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”[38]
This is apparent through metaphorical journey of a ‘comedown’, which Boyle
clearly translates through the equilibrium state[39],
in connection to structural theorist Todorov, of the user’s beginning their
consumption, towards the disequilibrium state presenting the calamity of
addiction. Therefore, through showing both the ‘highs’ and ‘lows’, it arguably
deserved to be “the second most successful British film”[40],
that year.
An audience are able to identify this sequence of
‘coming up', (equilibrium state), through the immediate scene set in “Mother
Superior”, the dealer’s, house which is painted with vibrant fuchsias, yellows
and greens and 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 diegetic 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. This also reflects the changes within British film post-9/11.
However, the previously more animated drug representation
in Trainspotting compares with significantly the scene of the “grotesquely
soiled toilet”[41]
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 and ‘come down’[42]
experienced by 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. This is through the character
Sara – an elderly woman addicted to diet pills and dependent for “ersatz
company”[43]
Her comedown state 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 1936 American
propaganda film about drugs, is a credible example of the drug moral panic that
existed in the US prior to 9/11. It is described as an “overcooked stew of
heavy moralizing and dope-ravaged depravity”[44],
which is clear through its exploitation of the drug cannabis. 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
with 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 cannabis onto the
naive early 20th century audience, who would be passive, in regards
to Adorno’s Hypodermic model[45],
to the underpinning injection of hegemonic ideologies. A Marxist[46]
reading would suggest that the scene resembles imagery of the dictatorship within
the government associated with the drug laws, ultimately reinforcing hegemonic
control. Initially the ‘dictator’ has his back turned to an audience, shown through
the medium long shot, as he was addressing the parents, which suddenly changed
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. This
mirroring of non-fictional text conventions creates a hyper-reality setting,
with regard to Baudrillard[47],
that would consequently create a false-sense of validity associated with drugs,
to its audience.
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 Stuart Hall’s theory would
support that the dominant reading[48]
of drugs is a largely negative one involving the youth, enforcing a moral panic
around the two correlating oppositions – cannabis 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 films where specific ethnic groups were labelled with
different drugs, such as ‘Scarface’ and the Columbian protagonist ‘Tony
Montanna’ who used the drug cocaine, (“mobile and a symbol of status”[49]),
to climb up the social ladder. This consequently painted the representation of
cocaine drug distributors as Columbians. Alongside this, the American
television series, ‘Miami Vice’, reinforced the relationships between “The
Columbians with cocaine, the Jamaicans with cannabis and the Haitians with
voodoo and hallucinogens”[50]
It seems as though the American film industry have now detracted from labelling
specific races with drugs and instead, with the growing technological
developments are creating texts that will ultimately create box office sales.
This is evident through the extreme graphics and fractal zooms[51]
in Limitless, 2011 presenting ‘Eddie’, American film star Bradley Cooper, in
wide angle long shots walking through the city with a vivacious yellow glow
reflecting the euphoria and power he received from the drug and presenting
audiences with the supernatural reality of how drug consumption helped empower
him to become the top of the financial world.
Similarly, in Wolf of Wall Street, 2013, which reinforced
dominant patriarchal ideologies, it too tied drug use hand in hand with success
(with women and business). An example of this was the opening scene featuring
protagonist ‘Jordan’, conveyed by Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio, snorting
cocaine from a prostitutes behind. The illustrations of the characters
presented by idealised male actors, whom initially face a form of struggle, but
then find success through enduring drug consumption, with very minor moments of
‘coming down’, shows the US’s growing interest in portraying drugs in a
captivating way that will attract audiences interests and pleasures as this
will ultimately bring in sales.
All of which drastically compare to Britain’s
refrainment of purely glamorising drugs as they instead portray the harsh
realities and consequences that subside them, which is due to their more social
realist genre as oppose to Hollywood budget entertainment products.
To conclude, it is clear that there is difference between
the representations of drugs, depending on the where the text is produced. It
is also clear that the US have reverted from moral panic filled propaganda
texts such as Reefer Madness as they are now interested in engaging with the
pleasures and interests of contemporary audiences. Both human activist Russell
Brand from the UK and Ethan Nadellman from the US have highlighted the issues
revolved around drugs and the fact that “the war on drugs must end”[52].
In regards to the US, Nadellman makes extensive reference towards the
marginalisation of ethnic minorities due to the representation of them and
drugs, in both fictional and non-fictional texts. Arguably, films such as
Straight Outta Compton 2015, where black males are surrounded by the narrative
of drugs and violence, reiterate the ‘dangerous’[53]
aspect of Alvarado’s theory on black representation. These negative portrayals
have led to “the social mobility of black American’s [to have] suffered
collateral damage. [Consequently] imprisoning one in three black men”[54]
Referring back to both Limitless and Wolf of Wall Street, it is interesting
that both of the males were depicted by white actors and not black. And black
film maker Robert Townsend comments on the Hollywood film and television
industry describing them as “manipulative buffoons who use black actors only
for the roles as pimps, drug addicts, and prostitutes”[55]
and texts such as Straight Outta Compton support this.
Similarly in the UK reports have shown that “Black
and Asian people are disproportionally targeted”[56]
and “almost face double the chance of being charged”[57]
And through British texts such as the Ill Manors 2012, in terms of Alvarado,
there is a strong sense of danger that is associated with the characters. For
instance, the black drug dealer ‘Kirby’, who is presented in countless scenes
with iconography such as guns associated with criminality and danger.
Thereby, it seems as though despite modern texts
from the US containing a decreased moral panic in relation to drugs, it hasn’t
detracted from the negative associations of ethnic minorities and drugs. And
similarly, in the UK even though they have refrained from glamorisation, ethnic
minorities’ social status is too affected. Nevertheless, through the character
‘Richard’, the intense pity surrounding his life and eagerness for stability,
has possibly influenced a UK audience from marginalising black drug users.
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 text, presenting audiences with the
negative effects without scrutinising the drug itself, in hope that we will
feel despondent as the new ‘fear’ to refrain from partaking in drug culture.
Interestingly, “even though the specific drugs that [are] the focus of the
media stories, public fear and legislative attention changes, the structure of
fear and panic remains the same”[58]
Therefore, as the media are described as “agents of control charged with
upholding the social and moral order”[59],
their distorted depiction of drugs has led to audiences evoking pity and joy
around the culture that subsides it. However, despite the US executing a more
positive presentation of drugs within film through a-list actors, it seems as
though their main interest in creating productions that will be enjoyable for
their target audience to increase sales, reiterated through the fact that “the
cultural elite only use the media for enlightenment and entertainment”[60]
Whereas, in the UK through texts such as ‘Run: Richard’, alongside the other
British texts discussed, it is clear that the UK are more concerned about
addressing the social issues revolved around drugs in hope that it will help
condemn the use of drugs in today’s social landscape.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Books
Alvarado,
M., Gutch, R. and Wollen, T. (1987). Learning the media. London:
MacMillan Education.
Bennett,
P., Slater, J., & Wall, P. (2006). A2 Media Studies: The Essential
Introdcution. London and New York.
Billsberry,
J., Charlesworth, J., & Leonard, P. (2012). Moving images.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
Cragg, A. (2000). Knowing the score - Broadcasting Standards
Commission.
Fulcher,
J., & Scott, J. (2011). Sociology (4th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Harcup,
T., & O'Neill, D. (2001). What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism
Studies, Taylor and Francis Group.
Herman, N. J. (1995). Deviance:
A symbolic interactionist approach. Dix Hills, NY: General Hall.
Laspsley, R.,
& Westlake, M. Film Theory: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Manchester
and New York: Manchester University Press.
Lay,
S. (2002). British Social Realism. London: Wallflower.
Lee, L. (2015). Drugs in the Media: The production of Hegemony.
Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal.
Manchel, F. (1990). Film Study: An Analytical
Bibliography. London and Toronto.
Manning, P. (2007). Drugs and popular culture. Cullompton, Devon,
England: Willan Pub.
Murphy, R. (1997). British Cinema - Critical Concepts in Media and
Cultural Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Procter,
J. (2004). Stuart Hall. London: Routledge.
Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). Crack in America.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stevenson, J. (2000). Addicted: The Myth & Menace of Drugs in
Film.
Torrance, J. (1995). Karl Marx's theory of ideas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, O. (2006). "Miami Vice" by ONC Wang. Ejumpcut.org.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC33folder/miamivice.html
Wheatley, S. (2010). Don't
call me urban. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northumbria University Press.
Journals
Beyer, J. (2000).
TV shrinks drugs responsibility. Broadcast, 5.
Dams, T. (2000).
An Injection of Realism. Broadcast, 14.
James, N. (1997).
Sight and Sound A-z of cinema: intoxication. Sight And Sound, v7 n2.
Lawerson, E.,
& Leigh, D. (2000). Feeling Needled. Sight And Sound, v10 n12.
Macqueen, A.
(2010). Drug madness and the war we can't win. Broadcast, 23.
R Coope, M. (1989). Rehab!. Empire, N2.
Russel, M. M. (1991). Race and the
Dominant Gaze: Narratives of Law and Inequality in Popular Film.
Moving Texts
Reefer Madness. (1936). USA.
Requiem for a Dream. (2000). USA.
Run - Richard. (2013). UK.
Russell Brand: End the Drugs
War. (2012). UK.
Scarface. (1983). USA.
The Big Drugs
Debate. (2006). UK.
Trainspotting. (1996). UK.
Wolf of Wall Street. (2013). USA.
Straight Outta Compton. (2015). USA.
Limitless. (2011). USA.
Online
ABC1
Demograpahic | What does ABC1 mean?. Abc1demographic.co.uk.
Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://www.abc1demographic.co.uk/
Acmetv.co.uk,. Acme
Films. Retrieved 11 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 11 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 11 January 2016, from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v2zrg
C4 - 4 Careers. Retrieved 11
January 2016, from from http://www.channel4.com/4careers/about_values.html
Chandler, D. (1995). Uses
and Gratifications. Visual-memory.co.uk. Retrieved 25 February 2016,
from http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/usegrat.html
Channel 4,.
(2006). The Big Drugs Debate. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-drugs-debate/on-demand
Channel 4,. Run.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/on-demand/53615-003
Channel 4,. Run
- S1-Ep3: Hope. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-hope
Channel 4,. Run
- S1-Ep3: Old Haunts. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-old-haunts
Comedown. DrugWise.
Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://www.drugwise.org.uk/comedown/
Eastwood, N.,
& Michael Shiner, M. (2013). Ethnic minorities targeted in 'stop and
search' drug policing - 08 - 2013 - News archive - News - News and media - Home.
Lse.ac.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/08/DrugPolicing.aspx
Journal Of Labor
Economics, 20(3), 538-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339610
Magic
Bullet Or Hypodermic Needle Theory Of Communication. (2010). Communication
Theory. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from
http://communicationtheory.org/magic-bullet-or-hypodermic-needle-theory-of-communication/
Nadelmann, E.
(2014). Why we need to end the War on Drugs. Ted.com. Retrieved
11 January 2016, from
http://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 11 January
2016, from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10180944/Run-Channel-4-review.html
Schilesinger, F.
(2008). Drug dealers to the stars 'plotted to catch Amy Winehouse smoking
crack pipe on film'. Mail Online. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094215/Drug-dealers-stars-plotted-catch-Amy-Winehouse-smoking-crack-pipe-film.html
Shmoop Editorial
Team. (2008, November 11). Tzvetan Todorov Quotes. Retrieved
February 25, 2016, from http://www.shmoop.com/narrative-theory/tzvetan-todorov-quotes.html
Sidhu, N.,
Schüttler, K., & James, L. Run (TV Mini-Series 2013). IMDb.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2297604/
Study
Room - Business - Marketing - Analysing the market - Demographic Segmentation.
(n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.examstutor.com/business/resources/studyroom/marketing/market_analysis/8_psychographic_segmentation.php
Travers, A. (2011). Limitless
Fractal Zoom. Alantravers.com. Retrieved 25 February 2016, from
http://alantravers.com/index.php/2011/06/16/fractal-zoom/#more-173
Uktvreviewer.wordpress.com,.
(2013). ‘Run’ | uktvreviewer. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
https://uktvreviewer.wordpress.com/category/run/
Vine, R. (2013). Lennie
James: 'I said yes before I'd even read the script'. Telegraph.co.uk.
Retrieved 11 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.
(2013). Black people twice as likely to be charged with drugs possession –
report. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/ethnic-minorities-likely-charged-drug-possession
Walker, P., &
Collier, H. (2014). Tulisa Contostavlos trial collapses as judge criticises
Sun's Mazher Mahmood. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/21/tulisa-contostavlos-trial-collapses-sun-mazher-mahmood
Wikipedia,. Run
(TV series). Retrieved 11 January 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_(TV_series)#cite_note-BARB-6
Works Consulted
Books
Alder, P., &
Alder, P. (2012). Drugs and the American Dream: An Anthology.
Altman, J., &
J Everitt, B. (1996). Psychopharmacology -The biological, social and clinical
bases of drug addiction: commentary and debate.
Axelrod-Contrada,
J. (2008). The facts about drugs and society. New York: Marshall
Cavendish Benchmark.
Coomber, R.
(1998). The Control of drugs and drug users. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Harwood Academic Publishers.
Farrell Brodie,
J., & Redfield, M. (2002). High Anxieties - Cultural Studies in
Addiction. University of California Press.
Journals
Aston, S. (2001).
Westbrook doc at Granada. Broadcast, 8.
Cherry, M.
(1999). Drugs in film: popping a vein. Inside Film, n15.
Gibley, R.
(1996). Under the influence. Premiere, v4 n2.
Rose, J. (2000).
Recreation to TV portrayal of drugs unreal. Broadcast, 21.
Six Degrees of
degradation. (1997). Neon, 28-29.
Under the
Influence. (2008). Fade In, v10 n4.
Wootton, D. (2006). C4 drugs special tackle addiction. Broadcast,
27.
Moving Texts
Giving up the
Weed. (2006). UK.
How Safe are My
Drugs?. (2014). UK.
Limitless. (2012). USA.
Miami Vice. (1984). USA.
[1] Nadelmann, E. (2014)
[4] IMDb (n.d), Run (TV
Mini-Series)
[5] Acmetv.co.uk (n.d.)
[6] Rahim, S. (2013)
[7] Vine, R. (2013)
[8] Wikipedia (2013), Run (TV
Series)
[9] Channel 4 (2013), Run -
Episode 3
[10] Vine, R. (2013)
[13] Channel 4 (2013), S1-Ep3:
Hope
[16] Chandler, D. (1995)
[17] Laspsley,R. & Westlake,
M. (1988) p.131
[18] Alvarado, M. (1987)
[19] Bennett, P. Slater, J &
Wall, P. (2006)
[20] Walker & Collier, (2014)
[22] Schlesinger, F. (2008)
[23] Harcup, T & O'Neill, D.
(2001)
[24] Awford, J. (2015)
[26] Lee, L. (2015)
[28] Channel 4 (2013), S1-Ep3:
Old Haunts
[31] Channel4.com, (n.d.)
[32] Dams, T. (2000)
[34] Channel 4,(2006) The Big
Drugs Debate
[37] Beyer, J. (2000)
[38] Stevenson, J. (2000)
[39] Shmoop
Editorial Team. (2008)
[41] Murphy, R. (1997), p.410
[45] Billsberry, J. Charlesworth,
J. & Leonard, P. (2012) p.121
[47] Baudrillard, J. & Poster,
M. (1988) p.2
[48] Procter, J.(2004)
[50] Wang, O. 2006
[51] Travers, A. (2011)
[52] BBC (2012)
[53] Fulcher, J. & Scott, J.
(2011)
