In class we have looked at various theorists and how we might apply their thoughts to a media text. We also watched about twelve minutes of Kidulthood in order to establish whether the representations of teens that we see are realistic. Remember that representations are a construct and these can vary according to who it is made by, what their intentions are and who views the final product.
Stuart Hall believed that no amount of analysis can
find a text’s one true ‘meaning’, because different people who encounter the
text will make different interpretations. On the surface, this certainly seems
to make sense. After all, we don’t all like the same characters in our
favourite TV shows or films, or dislike the same. But we are all seeing the
same representations. The technical and symbolic codes that construct the
representations we perceive are the same – that is, the denotation is the same.
But from there, what the producers want us to think and what we actually think
might be two very different things. This reading, according to Hall, depends on
our social positioning – for example the level of our education and experience,
and what our occupations are.
Dick Hebdige's Subculture Theory is that teens can be split into two groups - 'trouble' and 'fun'.
Here's trouble:
Jonny and Rachel - If you need to catch up on this then it is available on Youtube but do be aware that there are some shocking scenes in it.
Putting it into practice: Kidulthood
Hall’s theories are useful to illustrate how different audiences might make
meaning from the 2006 Menhaj Huda film, Kidulthood.
The film is set in West London and recounts a ‘day in
the life’ of a group of school kids the day and the day after a classmate
commits suicide due to bullying. In the DVD’s special features, the writer of
the film, Noel Clarke, responds to the question:
What’s your response [to the claim] that Kidulthood
makes bullying and ‘happy slapping’ cool?
‘I don’t really care to be honest, because I know that the film’s not promoting
or justifying anything it’s merely ‘there’…it’s just a film that’s out there.
And it is highlighting what happens in society.’
This is an intentional approach to understanding how
representation works. Clarke appears to think that the representations made in
the film mean whatever they were intended to mean. He also suggests that
representations are a ‘window on the world’ that just reflect society. But, as
Media students – and in light of what we have learnt from Hall – we know
otherwise. What has been encoded may be decoded differently by different
audiences.
A quick read of the interactive users’ comments on the
International Movie Database (www.imdb.com) shows that different audiences
viewed the film, especially the extent of its realism, in very different ways.
I loved this film. I found it very
truthful about young urban people getting into fights and arguments and it
spiralling out of control.
It’s kinda cool to show the rest of the world how scary it can be in England.
I’ve grown up on an estate in Chatham and I can honestly say that what you see
in this film is really what it’s like...apart from they are so much younger.
I found this film a waste of 2 hours and the END may as well be the BEGINNING
as it fails to get my interest or take me anywhere.
I come from E15 (East London) and the stuff in Kidulthood happens all
the time in my area.
All northerners and elsewhere don’t really realise that London is one of the
roughest, crime-ridden places in the world! Damn you Richard Curtis!
The main factors that appear to influence the way
meaning is made from the film are the ages and locations of the audience
members. Those who live near to where the film is set appear to feel the film
is realistic, in terms of its representation of youth and their behaviour. This
therefore supports Hall’s view that the meaning made is influenced by social
positioning. The final respondent above goes further to hint at his/her
understanding of representation – ‘damn you Richard Curtis’ suggests that the
audience member feels that director Richard Curtis’s representations of London
in romcom films such as Love Actually (2003) have given those without
first-hand knowledge an inaccurate view of London.
The opening of Kidulthood merges different modes of
representation, using realist codes in production and MTV-style visual
trickery, such as split and sliding screens and cinemascope, in
post-production. Kidulthood opens with a close-up of feet playing football,
covered in mud and evoking a stereotype of a schoolboy. The diagetic
soundtrack; voices in a playground, reinforce this. The film stock is grainy,
characteristic of British realist films, and the location shooting and
handheld, restless camera jumping from character to character at eye level and
in shallow focus also adds to the sense of realism. Kids chat to each other, on
phones, are smoking in the playground, giving out invites to a party and play
football, in a realist representation of ‘every day life’. The dialogue is very
specific to both region and generation, language including ‘blud’, ‘bruv’, ‘hug
him up’, ‘allow it man’, ‘innit’ and ‘oh my days’ may not be understood by
people outside London’s youth culture.
But this scene is cross-cut with scenes that are more
conventional of the gangster genre. The camera is steady and close up, and the
focus remains shallow, but the subject; Trife drilling (what we later realise
is) a gun, is in contrast to the harmless goings on in the playground. The
drill is shot with key lighting to the left, creating dramatic areas of light
and dark. This juxtaposition of genres continues, as Trife talks to his uncle
in a car. Here we see further iconography of the gangster genre – replica guns,
drugs, and a menacing male figure who dresses in heavy jewellery and a long
black leather coat.
In the 12th-minute of the film, a female character
Katie switches on her stereo, and diagetic music begins, The Streets’ ‘Stay
Positive’. The music bridges to the next scene becoming non-diegetic, and
different characters are shown in split screen rolling from right to left,
resembling a music video. The technique indicates parallel action, as the
female characters are shown taking a pregnancy test and writing a suicide note,
whilst the male characters are shown going for a walk, getting a hair cut, and
playing computer games. The music becomes diagetic again as Katie’s parents
begin calling her to turn it down, and the montage ends with their discovery of
her body, after she has hung herself.
Kidulthood therefore uses codes of realism to
construct a representation of youth in west London. It is important to be aware
that this representation is as constructed as any other, as choosing to
represent youth in London in this way encodes a particular ideological
perspective.
The codes of realism used include:
• On location shooting
• Point of View shots
• Low resolution film stock
• Naturalistic lighting
• Handheld camera
• Eye level camera angles
Although some decisions may have been made for
economic reasons (low resolution film stock is far cheaper than the alternative
options often favoured by Hollywood, location shooting means not having to pay
for and prepare a studio), the overall effect is that the representation looks
more like ‘real life’, and as a result, the preferred reading is that these
young people are representative of ‘the youth of today’ growing up in west
London. The representations of young people are somewhat stereotypical; themes
of sex, drugs and violence are prevalent, juxtaposed to scenes of poor
parenting or youths not being understood by adults.
The target audience for the film, young people growing
up in urban environments, are likely to find these themes familiar, even if a
little exaggerated for narrative purposes. They may therefore identify with
some of the characters in the film, most likely Trife, who stands out as the
protagonist in the opening scenes when he is the only one to stand up to the
bully. However, if somebody from outside the target audience were to watch the
film, they would do so from the perspective of their own social position.
What if the people watching the film were your
parents, or even grandparents? Would they think the same as you? What if the people
watching the film were conservatives living in rural environments a long way
from a city? Would they find these characters and events believable? These are
the people who might make negotiated, or in some cases, oppositional readings.
Whilst the preferred reading is that this is a realistic film, some may think
the representations of youth are exaggerated or sensationalised, or made up
altogether. Whilst bullying happens with unfortunate regularity and underage
smoking and sex occurs also, it is rare for a young person to drill guns for
their gangster uncle or for a pupil to commit suicide. The codes of
social-realism and gangster are merged to such an extent that for some, the
film loses its realist edge. Whilst the writer of the film, Noel Clarke, refutes
the claims of sensationalism in the DVD’s special features, I think he fails to
give enough credit to his own imagination:
"Some people have said that this [film] will influence
society and influence young people. Whereas my thing is that it’s the opposite
way round. Society influenced the film. This film couldn’t exist if these
things weren’t happening already."
