A moral panic is the increased concern about something by a population that appears to be a threat to social order. The concern about the negative impact this group may have on society increases the hostility towards them, thus making a clear division between ‘them’ and ‘us’, and looking at them as ‘folk devils’. This divides the collective cultural identity our country might have had, leaving fragments of different groups holding their own ideologies and opinions on the matter. These fragments may then form their own cultural identity as they may feel collectiveness in this group, through similar ideas and morals, thus forming a part of his or her personal identity too.
Raving and ecstasy is a perfect example of how something seen initially as harmless can then be blown up by the media into a huge moral panic. It emerged in the late 80s/early 90s when all non-stop dancing and clubbing, in places such as Ibiza was getting increasingly popular. The younger generation were getting immersed in it, with huge secret raves were being organised on fields, miles away from towns and cities. Partying and drinking was one of the main ingredients for enjoying and rave and the third, becoming more and more popularly used, was ecstasy.
Ecstasy was being used frivolously within the younger people, as the rave craze grew larger it was known as the defining feature to rave culture. The media could be partly to blame for it’s huge popularity after commercialising the rave subculture, for example when the newspaper The Sun discovered rave, they even marketed their own smiley faced t-shirt, a logo that was becoming well known as a symbolism for rave. The fact ravers now even had their own iconic symbol increased the collective identity of this subcultures fragment. If they wore this symbol it made them feel like they belonged. Rave formed a part of these peoples personal identify too. The Sun newspaper soon became hostile when the moral panic was uncovered.
The emergence of the moral panic came to it’s highest peak when Leah Betts collapsed in her home on her eighteenth birthday after taking an ecstasy tablet, and subsequently went into a coma. Pictures of Leah on a life support machine where plastered all over the newspaper headlines. For the media her death was ‘ a potent image of innocence corrupted by a dangerous and malevolent subculture.’ From here the subculture of people involved in raves were seen as folk devils and threats to society, along with this they were seen as ‘wrong and foolish’ victims to the mythical drug dealers. This hostility grew, forming fragmentation in the British culture. Many of the younger generation were feared and seen as foolish and putting them selves at danger, whether any one knew they were attending the raves or not. Young people, or ravers were stereotyped as dangerous along with raves too, being deemed responsible for all deaths like Leah Betts’.
As a result of this moral panic, and an attempt as resolution, drug education was increased, such as the national strategy ‘Tackling Drugs Together’. Along with this the Public entertainments (drug misuse) act passed with out opposition. The police were given more power and new age travellers were attempted to be suppressed.
Although this moral panic eventually faded away, it had persisted for almost ten years, with volatile outbreaks within it. Generally the raves moved to clubs and media interest soon disappeared, but the stereotype and fear of the younger person who likes to party, still lives today, causing a separation in within our culture, particularly between ages.
Another moral panic that formed a fragment of cultural identity was the Aids epidemic. It was fist discovered by gay men in San Francisco and spread across the globe. This then caused the public perception to turn on homosexuals, prostitutes and drug users. The media made these groups, particularly homosexuals, seem like ‘folk devils’, along with their other label as a deviant minority. People began to view it as a gay plague and a majority in a poll were in favour of compulsory testing and the isolation or sterilisation of those infected.
This view of Homosexuals was incredibly wrong. Many became scared to socialise with gay people and there was an awful lot of prejudice against them. What had stemmed from a disease common in homosexuals was now completely their fault in some people’s eyes. This formed a fragment of cultural identity with Homosexuals being seen as folk devils. At this point they could have found a collective identity together, thriving on the fact only they could understand the prejudice each other were going through, as the thing that bought them together.
Aids faded as an issue and became a cultural and health related issue, people presume that if it does heighten again, the media will not be reporting it as an epidemic, as compared to when it was first discovered. It is now taught about in most schools and people now know about things like contraception that can help prevent it. Although the moral panic has faded away it has still given long-term implications for discourses about homosexuality and if still a key point of debate for those with homophobia.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Sunday, 1 November 2009
The Boat that Rocked
To what extent is the film based on real events?
While the story does have some relationship to real events it neither pretends to be or is hitorically accurate. It does not represent any specific station that was broadcasting to Britain in 1966, but it is most likely representing the very well known station, Radio Caroline. The even film uses a ship that is similar to that used by Radio Caroline from 1983 to 1990.
The film presents a group of DJs in 1966 who are battling against the traditionalist idea held by the British government that only broadcasts 45 minutes worth of pop music a day. It gives the impression that the only type of music being played is that of the classical genre, when infact the BBC at the time was very big on broadcasting Jazz. Instead it compares the restricted and very limited non-recorded music output of the British Broadcasting Corporation's three radio services of 1966, with a very liberal station.
Not only this, but the musical output and style of presentation of the first station (Radio Caroline), was very similar to the BBC Light Programme. This programme is not mentioned in the film as it would take away the emphasise of the need for Radio Rock.
There are similarities between many of the presenters. For example Chris O'Dowd plays a DJ called Simon, the station's fictitious breakfast DJ. "The breakfast jock on Radio Caroline at the time was Tony Blackburn, so there's definitely an element of him in it," says O'Dowd of his character.
Tony Benn, the Postmaster General, responsible for the enactment of the Marine Offences Act that was responsible for the closure of the off-shore stations. Minister Dormandy is a loose parody of this, he is stereotyped as a homourless austere minister, creating binary oppostion to the DJs, getting you on the DJs sides. This character is portrayed as very conservative in the film, when infact in real life Tony Benn was part of Labour. Although the chacacter is never explicitly branded Conservative, the representation of the character in this way, fits well with the 'evil' character, typically needed in a Richard Curtis film.
By the 1960s Briton's were available to a whole host of media, yet the film depicts a collective identity of naive britons huddled around a radio to listen to Radio Rock. This gives a mythological image of 2nd world war populations, when in fact they could actually be watching TV.
We never know what really happens to the DJs in the end of the film, we just know they go off their separate ways. Yet in the real era the BBC hired most of the out of work pirate radio DJs, for example Tony Blackburn, became one of the longest serving Breakfast presenters on Radio 1 (only just over taken by Chris Moyles this year.) and Philip Birch who was Managing Director of Wonderful Radio London became the founding managing director of Piccadilly Radio.
While the story does have some relationship to real events it neither pretends to be or is hitorically accurate. It does not represent any specific station that was broadcasting to Britain in 1966, but it is most likely representing the very well known station, Radio Caroline. The even film uses a ship that is similar to that used by Radio Caroline from 1983 to 1990.
The film presents a group of DJs in 1966 who are battling against the traditionalist idea held by the British government that only broadcasts 45 minutes worth of pop music a day. It gives the impression that the only type of music being played is that of the classical genre, when infact the BBC at the time was very big on broadcasting Jazz. Instead it compares the restricted and very limited non-recorded music output of the British Broadcasting Corporation's three radio services of 1966, with a very liberal station.
Not only this, but the musical output and style of presentation of the first station (Radio Caroline), was very similar to the BBC Light Programme. This programme is not mentioned in the film as it would take away the emphasise of the need for Radio Rock.
There are similarities between many of the presenters. For example Chris O'Dowd plays a DJ called Simon, the station's fictitious breakfast DJ. "The breakfast jock on Radio Caroline at the time was Tony Blackburn, so there's definitely an element of him in it," says O'Dowd of his character.
Tony Benn, the Postmaster General, responsible for the enactment of the Marine Offences Act that was responsible for the closure of the off-shore stations. Minister Dormandy is a loose parody of this, he is stereotyped as a homourless austere minister, creating binary oppostion to the DJs, getting you on the DJs sides. This character is portrayed as very conservative in the film, when infact in real life Tony Benn was part of Labour. Although the chacacter is never explicitly branded Conservative, the representation of the character in this way, fits well with the 'evil' character, typically needed in a Richard Curtis film.
By the 1960s Briton's were available to a whole host of media, yet the film depicts a collective identity of naive britons huddled around a radio to listen to Radio Rock. This gives a mythological image of 2nd world war populations, when in fact they could actually be watching TV.
We never know what really happens to the DJs in the end of the film, we just know they go off their separate ways. Yet in the real era the BBC hired most of the out of work pirate radio DJs, for example Tony Blackburn, became one of the longest serving Breakfast presenters on Radio 1 (only just over taken by Chris Moyles this year.) and Philip Birch who was Managing Director of Wonderful Radio London became the founding managing director of Piccadilly Radio.
Folk devils and Moral Panics
A moral panic is the intensity of feeling expressed in a population about an issue which appears to be a threat to the social order.
According to the Attributional model, characteristics of a moral panic are generally:
>Concern - There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
>Hostility - Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
>Consensus - Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
>Disproportionality - The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
>Volatility - Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.
Another model, the Processual Model, claims there are some other factors too:
>Emergence
>Media inventory- Where the media exaggerates and symbolizes the problem as an even bigger threat than it is. Creating dispropotionality and increasing hostility and 'Folk devil' representation of the situation.
>Moral entrepreneurs- Groups or organisations speaking out about it, to influence a concensus.
>Experts- Socially accredited experts who pronounce their diagnoses and solutions.
>Resolution and coping- Reaction. If laws are insufficiant, demands for legal reform will follow.
>Fading Away- The condition dissapears, sunmerges ot deteriorates.
>Legacy- May have little or long term lasting effect. Could also produce bg changes.
We did a presentation on Moral panics in relation to raving and ecstacy:
We then linked the this moral panic with the processional and attributional model...
Processual model:
Emergence: Rose in late 80’s. seen as initially harmless, but then as a threat to young people. The police were initially not bothered.
Media Inventory: Raves began to be stereotyped as dangerous and causing vulnerable deaths such as Leah Betts. The dangers were exaggerated, but the media did not go into prediction and symbolism. Ecstasy was the real focus, which the police seemed initially recipient on, as they found the raves more of a threat.(caused reform?)Drug dealers were the folk devils.
Moral entrepreneurs: These were not evident in the drug rave. There were no campaign groups.
Experts: Few of these. Most who knew a lot about the drug culture were close to the pleasures themselves, and so they relied on drug minimization. The popular press condemned this.
Resolution and coping: Legal responses in 1990,1994,1997- giving police powers, increasing drug education, suppressing new age travellers etc. Debatable as to this effectiveness, as it in fact made the drug industry more lucrative and encouraged more to be aware of drugs.
Fade away: raves moved into clubs, the media interest disappeared, ecstasy declined in its consumption.
Legacy: Laws seemed not much used, and although drugs are still well known and established as a British problem.
Attribution model:
Concern: The police and media express concern about raves but the political parties are slow to act. However, unknown general concern.
Hostility: Participants were seen as folk devils and threats, and also as victims to the mythical “drug dealers”. They were portrayed as wrong and foolish.
Consensus: The politicians, media and police began to try to suppress the movement and ambiguity BUT drug and health educators saw the measures as harsh and exaggerated, and the youth media and clubbers persisted. Therefore, the consensus was fragile.
Disproportioanlity: There were 42 to deaths from ecstasy in the moral panic such as Leah Briggs, which were held up as examples. BUT these were also caused by health problems of the teenagers. Really raves and ecstasy posed a health risk. Ecstasy is not physically addictive and more likely to cause psychological than physical harm, such as panic attacks. Some of the 42 deaths associated with ecstasy up to 1995 had other causes. Most were caused when inadequate intake of fluids produced excessive body temperatures. Compared with other risks to young people or other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, ecstasy did not warrant such a reaction. (Saunders 1995)
Volatility: Length; speed of emergence and decline. Each episode expanded and contracted rapidly but the issue as a whole persisted for nearly ten years, suggesting a serial panic, with volatile outbreaks within a longer period. Claims makers: principal claims and counter clams makers; motives and strategies; degree of success. The principal claims makers were the police, some parts of the press and politicians. Counter claims came from drug educationalists and youth culture itself. The contest was uneven when it came to passing laws but the obduracy of participants forced considerable concessions.
According to the Attributional model, characteristics of a moral panic are generally:
>Concern - There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.
>Hostility - Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".
>Consensus - Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.
>Disproportionality - The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.
>Volatility - Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.
Another model, the Processual Model, claims there are some other factors too:
>Emergence
>Media inventory- Where the media exaggerates and symbolizes the problem as an even bigger threat than it is. Creating dispropotionality and increasing hostility and 'Folk devil' representation of the situation.
>Moral entrepreneurs- Groups or organisations speaking out about it, to influence a concensus.
>Experts- Socially accredited experts who pronounce their diagnoses and solutions.
>Resolution and coping- Reaction. If laws are insufficiant, demands for legal reform will follow.
>Fading Away- The condition dissapears, sunmerges ot deteriorates.
>Legacy- May have little or long term lasting effect. Could also produce bg changes.
We did a presentation on Moral panics in relation to raving and ecstacy:
Raving and Ecstasy
View more presentations from Helenaiscool.
We then linked the this moral panic with the processional and attributional model...
Processual model:
Emergence: Rose in late 80’s. seen as initially harmless, but then as a threat to young people. The police were initially not bothered.
Media Inventory: Raves began to be stereotyped as dangerous and causing vulnerable deaths such as Leah Betts. The dangers were exaggerated, but the media did not go into prediction and symbolism. Ecstasy was the real focus, which the police seemed initially recipient on, as they found the raves more of a threat.(caused reform?)Drug dealers were the folk devils.
Moral entrepreneurs: These were not evident in the drug rave. There were no campaign groups.
Experts: Few of these. Most who knew a lot about the drug culture were close to the pleasures themselves, and so they relied on drug minimization. The popular press condemned this.
Resolution and coping: Legal responses in 1990,1994,1997- giving police powers, increasing drug education, suppressing new age travellers etc. Debatable as to this effectiveness, as it in fact made the drug industry more lucrative and encouraged more to be aware of drugs.
Fade away: raves moved into clubs, the media interest disappeared, ecstasy declined in its consumption.
Legacy: Laws seemed not much used, and although drugs are still well known and established as a British problem.
Attribution model:
Concern: The police and media express concern about raves but the political parties are slow to act. However, unknown general concern.
Hostility: Participants were seen as folk devils and threats, and also as victims to the mythical “drug dealers”. They were portrayed as wrong and foolish.
Consensus: The politicians, media and police began to try to suppress the movement and ambiguity BUT drug and health educators saw the measures as harsh and exaggerated, and the youth media and clubbers persisted. Therefore, the consensus was fragile.
Disproportioanlity: There were 42 to deaths from ecstasy in the moral panic such as Leah Briggs, which were held up as examples. BUT these were also caused by health problems of the teenagers. Really raves and ecstasy posed a health risk. Ecstasy is not physically addictive and more likely to cause psychological than physical harm, such as panic attacks. Some of the 42 deaths associated with ecstasy up to 1995 had other causes. Most were caused when inadequate intake of fluids produced excessive body temperatures. Compared with other risks to young people or other drugs, including tobacco and alcohol, ecstasy did not warrant such a reaction. (Saunders 1995)
Volatility: Length; speed of emergence and decline. Each episode expanded and contracted rapidly but the issue as a whole persisted for nearly ten years, suggesting a serial panic, with volatile outbreaks within a longer period. Claims makers: principal claims and counter clams makers; motives and strategies; degree of success. The principal claims makers were the police, some parts of the press and politicians. Counter claims came from drug educationalists and youth culture itself. The contest was uneven when it came to passing laws but the obduracy of participants forced considerable concessions.
Stereotypes
Traditionally stereotypes are meant reflect culture, but often they are exaggerated to generate a prefrered reading of a type of person. These are known as Intentional Stereotypes, this often leads to a negotiated reading of the group. This can come from a Constructed Stereotype, where a group is represented to the reader in a way that the person who is telling it has effected and contructed how we think of them.
To be expanded....?
To be expanded....?
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Richard Curtis / Working Title case study for collective identity.
Who are the target audience for the film?
There are a number of target audiences for The boat that rocked, but i think a significant one would be people who actually listened to the pirate radios similar 'Radio Rock' that are depicted in the film. For example after talking to my Dad i discovered that he was interested in seeing the film too. This surprised me as it's not really the type of film he would go and see, but it interested him because he used to listen to pirate radios regulary and remembers the incidence of them being made illegal vividly. For people like him this film offers a sense of nostalgia and past times, that would draw them into watching it.
Along with this it appeals to people interested in watching well known comedians are actors, both British and American, come together. It has a sense of silliness to it and rebellious attitude towards conventional society that many teenagers and children can relate to, including them in the target audience too.
How does the film rely on stereotypes?
The film relies on stereotypical, out going rebbellious 'pirates' of the sixties. These characters are , of course, exaggerated; depicting them as daily alcohol and drug abusers, yet some able to keep a well organised radio station running. These characters are larger than life, outgoing people who hate the rules. They are oppositional to the governament MPs that are represented in the film. These characters appose the pirates in everyway, their dress sense, jobs, families and friends, all contibute to the tradional and oppressing attitudes to freedom that hey hold.
In what ways can they be said to be quintessentially British?
Sir Alistair Dormandy is incredibly stereotypically british. His suits and dress code are shown as very upperclass along with his accent, which is overly well spoken and stern.
How has the advent of Cool Britannia enabled the production of this film? Cool Britannia is a media term that was used during the mid-to-late 20th century to describe the contemporary culture of the United Kingdom.
"Cool Britannia" referred to the transient fashionable London scene, 1990s bands, fashion designers, the Young British Artists and magazines. There was a sudden influx of lively British rock and pop music from bands such as Oasis, Blur, Suede, Supergrass, Pulp and The Verve, as well as the Spice Girls. The movement saw a renewal in British pride.
Although not the same time period, there are similarities, such as the interest of new music, the kind of music that was hardly played on the radio at the time.
There are a number of target audiences for The boat that rocked, but i think a significant one would be people who actually listened to the pirate radios similar 'Radio Rock' that are depicted in the film. For example after talking to my Dad i discovered that he was interested in seeing the film too. This surprised me as it's not really the type of film he would go and see, but it interested him because he used to listen to pirate radios regulary and remembers the incidence of them being made illegal vividly. For people like him this film offers a sense of nostalgia and past times, that would draw them into watching it.
Along with this it appeals to people interested in watching well known comedians are actors, both British and American, come together. It has a sense of silliness to it and rebellious attitude towards conventional society that many teenagers and children can relate to, including them in the target audience too.
How does the film rely on stereotypes?
The film relies on stereotypical, out going rebbellious 'pirates' of the sixties. These characters are , of course, exaggerated; depicting them as daily alcohol and drug abusers, yet some able to keep a well organised radio station running. These characters are larger than life, outgoing people who hate the rules. They are oppositional to the governament MPs that are represented in the film. These characters appose the pirates in everyway, their dress sense, jobs, families and friends, all contibute to the tradional and oppressing attitudes to freedom that hey hold.
In what ways can they be said to be quintessentially British?
Sir Alistair Dormandy is incredibly stereotypically british. His suits and dress code are shown as very upperclass along with his accent, which is overly well spoken and stern.
How has the advent of Cool Britannia enabled the production of this film? Cool Britannia is a media term that was used during the mid-to-late 20th century to describe the contemporary culture of the United Kingdom.
"Cool Britannia" referred to the transient fashionable London scene, 1990s bands, fashion designers, the Young British Artists and magazines. There was a sudden influx of lively British rock and pop music from bands such as Oasis, Blur, Suede, Supergrass, Pulp and The Verve, as well as the Spice Girls. The movement saw a renewal in British pride.
Although not the same time period, there are similarities, such as the interest of new music, the kind of music that was hardly played on the radio at the time.
Friday, 16 October 2009
Dominant Discourses
-By two important theorists of communication-- Michel Foucault and Stuart Hall.
-A "discourse" is a particular way of talking about a subject by groups of people, it contains particular ideological beliefs.
-Dicourse analysis identifies the cultrally and socially produced sets of ideas and values that stucture texts and representations.
We are looking at dominant dicourses in British indentity, shown in the media. I shall update this post with some examples.
-A "discourse" is a particular way of talking about a subject by groups of people, it contains particular ideological beliefs.
-Dicourse analysis identifies the cultrally and socially produced sets of ideas and values that stucture texts and representations.
We are looking at dominant dicourses in British indentity, shown in the media. I shall update this post with some examples.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Richard Curtis- British Myth
Richard Curtis, is a BAFTA, Primetime Emmy winning and Oscar nominated English screenwriter, music producer, actor and film director, known mostly for his romantic comedy films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral, Bridget Jones's Diary, Notting Hill, The Boat That Rocked and Love Actually, as well as the hit sitcoms Blackadder, Mr. Bean and The Vicar of Dibley.
A Richard Curtis film is very distinctive and defined, infact, it's as if his name itself could stand for the genre we all know and love (or hate!): The Rom Com.
It has a set of prize winning, generic ingredients including, very importantly location. These locations are often London and another very contrasting homely location. With hightened atmosphere of incompatibility and antitheseis of these two places, comedy and cultral clashes emerge, adding to the story.
Curtis' values in his films are liberal and assured. He is inclusive ,yet non-patronising, towards giving popular screen time to characters with mental or pysical disability. Some of his 'wacky' or different characters can even be seen as 'cultral diversity.
The main main virtues are modesty, or humility, which create a type self-deprecating humour that only Curtis could produce. Much of the humour in the films comes by putting the main characters into mischef and subjecting them to humiliation or simply making them look silly. It's as if coping with this mortification is nearly a duty for the protagonist.
Overall this particular genre of filmmaking is perfect for a set of values including love, compassion, kindness, charity, open-mindedness.
So,
There is a setting
A moral universe.
Faith that this universe will stand up to all challenges.
Making sure the relationship will work out.
And most of all- LOVE WILL CONQUER ALL.
A happy ending!
A Richard Curtis film is very distinctive and defined, infact, it's as if his name itself could stand for the genre we all know and love (or hate!): The Rom Com.
It has a set of prize winning, generic ingredients including, very importantly location. These locations are often London and another very contrasting homely location. With hightened atmosphere of incompatibility and antitheseis of these two places, comedy and cultral clashes emerge, adding to the story.
Curtis' values in his films are liberal and assured. He is inclusive ,yet non-patronising, towards giving popular screen time to characters with mental or pysical disability. Some of his 'wacky' or different characters can even be seen as 'cultral diversity.
The main main virtues are modesty, or humility, which create a type self-deprecating humour that only Curtis could produce. Much of the humour in the films comes by putting the main characters into mischef and subjecting them to humiliation or simply making them look silly. It's as if coping with this mortification is nearly a duty for the protagonist.
Overall this particular genre of filmmaking is perfect for a set of values including love, compassion, kindness, charity, open-mindedness.
So,
There is a setting
A moral universe.
Faith that this universe will stand up to all challenges.
Making sure the relationship will work out.
And most of all- LOVE WILL CONQUER ALL.
A happy ending!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)