Room

Emma Donoghue's award winning Room has finally been adapted for film! The 2010 novel won over critics and global readers for it's unusual yet captivating plot told from the perspective of young Jack, a boy born in captivity. Jack and Ma live in the claustrophobic confinement of 'Room' until Ma is able to convince their captor, Old Nick, that Jack is deathly ill. A close escape follows and Jack is able to lead the police back to his mother and the two are freed. From this point onwards, the story focuses on recovery and is quite overwhelming.

The film adaptation follows the novel's storyline nearly exactly, which is to be expected considering Donoghue was the film's screenwriter. Directed by Lenny Abrahamson, the films aesthetics clearly captured Donoghue's vision and her intentions for the visual representation of her world. Abrahamson's previous works are similarly groundbreaking with the focus being primarily independent film. Other than his film Frank, with writers Jon Ronson and Peter Straughan, Room is likely to be his biggest success due to it's existing following since the release of the book.

Starring Brie Larson as Joy 'Ma' Newsome and Jacob Tremblay as Jack, Room has some of the best performances I've seen in some time. Larson in particular is compelling in her role. She truly encapsulates the frustration of the character both inside and outside of 'Room'. In particular, her interactions with Jack are challenging yet confirming in order to help him develop within such a small space. Larson seemed stretched at times when trying to accurately portray the mental struggle of her character, yet prevailed in becoming one of the strongest performances within the film. Her ability to portray such pain and helplessness will no doubt serve her well as she moves on to new productions in 2016.

As for Jacob Tremblay - such a young talent that I'm sure will continue to blossom. Not only has this young actor taken on an incredibly challenging role but is also taking on a role that has been established for the last five years by a top selling novel. Absolutely the shining beacon of light within this film, Tremblay was one hundred percent committed to his role. His interpretation of Jack was hard to watch at times as we witness him grow separately from his mother after they are freed from captivity. To take on the role of a character who has never known the world that Tremblay himself lives in, is challenging. But his performance was everything it needed to be. His soft facial features combined with the soft spoken nature of his character was a wonderful match. He was realistic in his portrayal and didn't overact the part which lead to a seamless transition between pre-world Jack and post-world Jack. 

There is no surprise that this film is gaining the attention of film critics and film lovers worldwide. With a Golden Globe already won, Room is hopefully going to collect a few more accolades as the 2016 award season continues.

South Park and Television Violence

With Television fast becoming the most popular medium of entertainment for people across the world, it is no surprise that the government is increasing its involvement. For years, television has been victim to increasing censorship in what seems like all but one area – animation. With other formats such as talk shows and reality television kept to strict limits, it is surprising that some forms of adult animation continues to portray the taboo with little to no consequences. In particular, the use of violence, or rather the overuse of extreme violence, goes unpunished in the world of adult animation. Within the context of American Animation designed for television, the debate regarding television violence continues on today after nearly 25 years. In 1990, American President, George Bush, signed the Television Violence Act. This granted the ‘TV networks, cable operators, and independent stations three years of immunity from antitrust regulations to allow them to establish guidelines for TV violence’ (Foerstel, 1997:216). Since then there has been several studies conducted to prove that the violence shown on TV has direct consequences especially in regards to children. And even when the child’s behaviour is not effected, it often desensitises them to more extreme forms of violence. In a way, adult animation is akin to a gateway drug, providing a comfortable situation that seems innocent enough when in actuality it is dulling our perception of what is acceptable. After all, if it’s portrayed on television, can it really be that bad?

Animation seems to be one format of television that continues to break boundaries and challenge the limits of censorship and those set by the Television Violence Act. South Park in particular has made a name for itself by displaying vulgar characters and plot lines that are often protested in response. Often the episodes upset the general public, the government and on occasion, religious groups because of the depiction of subject matter that is widely considered ‘taboo’. ‘Parker and Stone’s gleeful determination to be equal opportunity offenders’ result in an abundance of enemy’s and public bodies prepared to try and take the cartoon series off air (Stratyner, Keller 2009:6). Before each episode, creators of the show Trey Parker and Matt Stone present us with their own personal take on the ‘mature content/parental guidance suggested’ warning that is satirical and becomes somewhat of a foreshadow of the shows lack of consideration for the rules and regulations in place. Still, the boys from South Park have been on our television screens for over 15 years.

Society has been evolving to slowly accept increasingly radical images of violence. The internet has allowed a new generation to access to disturbing content with a single click. There are sites dedicated to images and video files of people dying. With this information so accessible, television audiences are no longer surprised by the same story lines that they used to be. Now in order to shock, writers have to push the boundaries of censorship and create images that only a decade ago would have caused nationwide uproar. The research that promotes the assertion, that exposure to television violence frequently has the ‘effect of desensitising people to violence and increasing violent and aggressive behaviour’, is widely supported (Murtagh, 2007:34). Consistently trying to controversial, South Park is popular in part, because people are tuning in to see what they will do next. They push the limits further than any other format on TV today. But when analysing a show like South Park, it is important to decipher whether or not you’re offended by the events in the show because of their nature or if you’re offended because they are courageous enough to talk about it. Whilst most shows on television still opt for the less controversial route to the same destination, the straight forward offensiveness of South Park garners the majority of the attention. In many cases South Park is simply insensitive about a subject, so much so that it is protested. However, in the cases of government involvement in banning the show from certain countries, it is hard not to consider that the opposing party was merely annoyed at a situation being brought to light.

Cartoon boys telling each other to do obscene things and to act in certain ways is considered dangerous to the thousands of impressionable children watching. And it is no surprise that only the adults are contesting the show. ‘An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day’ (Nielsen Media, 2004/5:132). Children grow up wanting to do the things that they cannot do, and as a result many grow up watching explicit material either on TV or on Film. South Park has managed to escape criticism for a lot of their work because they have never deliberately targeted the show towards children. However, as a cartoon, the show immediately appeals to a younger audience and combined with the content, which would make their parents wince, South Park suddenly becomes a must see show amongst young teens. And although society is not as easily shocked as it once was, there is still a universal agreement that we should be a certain age before being able to watch certain material.

Parents and activist groups have found South Park to be a repeat offender in influencing bad behaviour in kids. ‘A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence on children find that there is a high correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times violent behaviour’ (Martin 2003: 6). Obviously this is largely to do with the plot lines, language and imagery but some of this is partially to do with the continued representation of the main characters, a group of young boys. ‘Not a single character in South Park elicits a complicated emotional reaction from the viewer. Indeed, through the portrayal of repeated violent acts, the viewer becomes immune to the “reality” of this violence and is discouraged from registering any emotional reaction’ (Halsall 2009:33). Combined with the belief that viewers are being desensitised by television, merging explicit content with simple characters that do not use intellectual thought or consideration in many of their interactions, it’s understandable that our generation may be on a downward spiral towards inferior understanding of basic social situations.

Animation is a format that brings in large audiences and has done so since its beginning. In part because it is the simplest way of capturing the ‘hearts and imaginations of children and adults alike’ (Browne, Browne 2001:141). The rise of the adult cartoon in the last decade has pushed the genre to the forefront of everyone’s attention. And brings into question the reason behind its popularity. Cartoons provide comfort to adults as it reminds them of their childhood. Saturday morning cartoons, a childhood staple for many children across the world, provided the foundation for many of the shows on television today. Many American shows such as Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy use basic animated slapstick like the skits often seen in their predecessors over twenty years ago. The reason why these cartoons are popular amongst adults is because of this familiarity. They seek comfort in a format that hasn’t evolved its basic form in years. Yes, technology and its advancements has improved the quality significantly, but when stripped back to their core, shows like South Park could just as easily be a glorified Beavis and Butthead. Animation is able to avoid certain censorship issues because of this. The format doesn’t intimate its viewers, even with its sometimes provocative material. It sits almost docile in the background, unassuming and unobtrusive. So much so that animation only makes headlines when a show steps so far over the line that it would be impossible not to notice. Many institutions have attempted to change the content of animation over the years to be a controversial medium that is subjected to blacklisting, censorship and boycotts in an attempt to promote the popularity of the genre.

As afore mentioned, South Park manages to avoid repercussions for refusing to conform. In many ways, these shows are important as they remind society of why we have censorship rules in the first place. Perhaps containing the majority of television violence to one genre allows for the outlet that people need without polluting our screens with every sadistic detail. It’s important to have extremes in society to remind us why we need discipline and structure. Even though censorship can be limiting at times, it is an important part of modern culture because it can refine the relationship between the government and its people as well as its control over the constituents. It is often thought that censorship reflects ‘the moral tone of the country’ and that we are protected from the things that we cannot handle (Cohen, 1997:5). If South Park were to be censored, its unlikely audiences would see the same turmoil between evil (Cartman/Government) and the reflective moral voice of reason (Stan or Kyle/the people). And with governmental turmoil sweeping European countries, this comparison is more relevant now than ever before. When considering ‘censorship as a necessary evil’, there is always an exception to the rule. In this particular case of television violence, adult animation is that exception (Marshik, 2006:129). Sometimes in order for things to grow and progress within a genre, there needs to be limitations, however, animation have proved time and time again that no boundaries will stop the creative process.

Is it possible that we are becoming too protective over our children and the things that they watch? It is entirely possible that too much consideration has gone into a very basic issue. ‘Often in matters of censorship, the intended context is moot. When someone believes that it represents something entirely different perception becomes reality’ (Nuzum, 2001:2). Or maybe, we have overlooked South Park and shows like it simply because they provide the adult mind with stimulation, forgetting that it could be having a more extreme effect on the next generation. With the minds of our future leaders at risk, society is questioning censorship within television but is yet to make any real steps towards limiting the risqué content. Protested largely because it highlights many modern day issues that often go undiscussed on a public podium, South Park is the prime example of a long disputed show that has yet to face real consequences. And because of this, we have to accept that some formats are not subjected to the same rules and regulations that apply to all others.

Animation, with its comfortable aesthetic and familiar tones, lures audience into a secure world that deals openly and hilariously with the taboo matters in society. And although contested by world famous actors and world renowned politicians, the show has not slowed down since its launch. Censorship in prime time television has been increasing with many shows cutting out swear words, suggestive imagery and over sexualisation of characters. Whereas, after the watershed, programs predictably push the limits of acceptable behaviour on TV. Series’ like South Park paved the way for other ludicrous shows to continue to make leaps and bounds forward in the war against censorship. Battling governments and celebrities alike, South Park has used its popularity to stay alive and to contest the notion that audiences dislike the unspoken truths in society.


Bibliography

Browne, Ray and Browne, Pat (2001) The Guide to United States Popular Culture, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press

Cohen, Karl F (1997) Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers

Foerstel, Herbert (1997) Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia, Connecticut, Greenwood Press

Halsall, Alison (2008) ‘Bigger Longer & Uncut’ in Taking South Park Seriously, New York, State University of New York Press

Keller, James and Stratyner, Leslie (2009) ‘Introduction: An Unofficial Explanation and Brief History of South Park’ in The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Televisions Shocking Cartoon Series, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers

Marshik, Celia (2006) British Modernism and Censorship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Martin, Kevin (2003) Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children, Washington D.C, Diane Publishing Inc

Murtagh, Kevin (2007) ‘Blasphemous Humour in South Park’ in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing

Nielsen Media (2004/5) Nielsen Media Research, New York, Nielsen Media

Nuzum, Eric (2001) Parental Advisory, London, HarperCollins

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

To my wonderful boyfriend and Star Wars fans who haven't yet seen this film - this review will have spoilers so you better avert your eyes!

Back with a bang! The Star Wars franchise, now owned by the Disney corporation, is back in cinemas with a whole host of new and familiars faces. Directed by J.J Abrams, The Force Awakens is set to be the first in the Star Wars sequel trilogy following on from the events in Return of the Jedi. After 30 years, fans are thrust back into the world that George Lucas originally created to discover that the First Order has risen and is hunting to kill Luke Skywalker - the last 'Jedi'. We are reunited with Leia and learn that the Resistance are hoping to find Luke and first and save him - and have him save them. Throughout we are treated to callbacks to previous films, a touch that felt unnecessary at times but was likely included to appease die hard fans. The pacing was great and did not feel rushed which allowed for such moments to take place. But clearly keeping the fans happy was not the primary goal of this film. The creators are clearly trying to link this film to its predecessors but are also distinguishing the film as a powerhouse of it's own. 

***SPOILERS*** 

Perhaps killing Han Solo is the only way to move this film on from the popular storyline of the first six films. The way that Kylo Ren seems conflicted in his actions, after all he is Solo and Leia's son, could imply possible redemption in future instalments. However, I do believe 'once a villain, always a villain'. It's one thing to fall to the dark side, but to discover light seems like too big a challenge even for Ren at this point.This death allows fans and the general masses to move their attention towards Ren and the younger generation.

The new faces that I mentioned were led by Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac and Adam Driver (sort of - he will likely be recognised more for his role in Star Wars than his role in HBO's Girls). Isaac, thought to be dead shortly after the film's opening fight scenes, makes a return with the Resistance to save his new allies. Although he wasn't featured heavily, I feel that Poe, the character played by Isaac, may become the Han Solo of the new films as pilot Rey moves towards embracing the force and becoming a Jedi.

Ridley was spectacular. I found it took some time to warm up to her and her style of acting - which I would say seems very much based in theatre - but once I did, I found her character, Rey, to be completely believable and her portrayal compelling. It is my belief that her character will be revealed as a relative of either Obi Wan Kenobi or Qui-Gon Jinn. I don't think the creators of this new season are stupid enough to focus on another brother and sister storyline which is why I'm thinking she's not related to Leia or Luke. I'm hoping that with the next film, we delve further into her origin story and get the answers to some of the questions that this film simply did not answer.

Boyega was another pleasant surprise. A true light within the film with most of his actions geared towards doing what is right, he provides the film with a one giant helping of heart and hope. His character, Finn, has real gumption and determination which Boyega accurately portrays. I felt like he was one of the characters that will have an interesting twist in future films and that it may involve either family or losing Rey to the darkside.

As for Driver, portraying villain and Vader grandson Kylo Ren, his face was hidden for a large portion of the film but was revealed for the last third. He was distant but almost sympathetic which is what I think will propel the character into the hearts of fans. He is the best direction for this film to follow and dare I say, a better baddie than even some of the best - I'm looking at you Vader! 

The return of Han, Chewbacca, Leia, Luke and several other Star Wars classic characters was a lovely sight to see. They have helped introduce old fans to a new film but hopefully they will feature slightly less in the upcoming films. I only say this because I think the new cast is strong enough to hold the fort on their own. The films humour, from both new and old characters, was a great touch. Throughout there were jokes and hilarious gestures that had me giggling quietly in my seat. And with adorable BB-8 pulling out the 'awes' this film had everything I needed.

Seeing the film in 3D was a little overwhelming. I felt overloaded at times by my senses but wouldn't have opted for anything else. The best way to see any new blockbuster is at a cinema and in the best possible seat with the best quality screen that you can find. I've never been a huge Star Wars fan, I've seen every film but I've never felt any allegiance to the characters or the franchise. But now, I'm excited to see how this new cast, with the odd familiar character, will develop next year in Rogue One.

Burnt

Directed by John Wells with a screenplay by Steven Knight, Burnt is the story of Adam Jones as he tries to reclaim the respect of his peers and finally get his third Michelin star after a troublesome past in Paris. Focusing on this star, Jones moves to London and reconnects with old friends (and enemies) with the hope of reestablishing his career as one of the most talented chefs in the world. After facing several setbacks, due to his drug history and his tendency to be an asshole, Jones' restaurant takes shape and soon the world is taking interest. It is worth noting, that this film's twist was unexpected and excellently executed. But I wont mention the moment in this review as the film has only just been released in the UK. 

Adam Jones is the typical rebellious, creative mind. His own arrogance stands in his way at nearly every juncture, and his obsessive nature makes for stressful viewing. However, I would say that Cooper's performance was spot on. Cooper is known mostly for films that fall at either end of the spectrum - award winning or forgettable. In a radio interview, Cooper explained how he was adamant that he master the lingo and the actions required to be convincing as a chef. He claimed he has worked previously in a kitchen and that this was a good starting point for what was going to be a long journey of education. Joined on screen by Sienna Miller, he quickly appeared comfortable in the role and was frankly a delight to watch - despite the character's personality, being at times, unbearable. 

Speaking of Miller, whilst her character was a welcome addition to the film's overall cast, I felt the inclusion of a romance subplot was unnecessary. Personally, I would have preferred if the film had focused solely on the food and the road to a Michelin star (or three, as this chef aims for). The blossoming love story between Adam and Helene cheapened the film and felt like a last minute addition to the plot in order to appeal to wider audiences. For example, my mother was disappointed by the film because she wanted it to explore more of the relationship between Adam and Helene... Needless to say, I was disappointed by her observation. Furthermore, Helene being a mother added nothing to the film. Literally nothing. Wasted screen time and money trying to make a character more relatable and likeable. I would have preferred ten extra minutes of Adam Jones talking about how amazing he is.

Daniel Brühl's performance was another pleasant addition to the cast. Not only because I see so much of him in a French, Sommelier friend of mine, but because he was convincing in the role. I haven't noticed Brühl in his other films despite having seen many, but will certainly be keeping my eye out for him in the future. Hopefully his efforts are recognised by heavy hitters in the industry who have roles that will test, challenge and inspire him to do more films in mainstream Hollywood. Hopefully leading to more Brühl on our screens and more recognition for his hard work.

As for the film's overall aesthetic. An obvious amount of scenes were created and manipulated in order to display the cooking and the food. Please do not make the mistake that I made and eat before you see Burnt. Otherwise, you'll be rushing home to cook up some store bought meal that will make you sigh with disappointment in comparison to the dishes seen on film. The inclusion of frequent French language (and therefore subtitles) was an interesting decision but didn't hinder the film's progression in anyway. The use was natural and flowed amongst the scenes. After the first few times, it is easy to forget that the characters are speaking a different language. It'll be interesting to read the reviews for this film as they begin trickling out. I'm not yet sure whether it will be making as big an impact as the cast and crew would think, but then again it is entirely possible for a film like this to surprise us all come award season.  

Spectre

James Bond is back. Daniel Craig returns, yet again, as Ian Fleming's infamous spy. Spectre is a continuation of Craig's previous appearances in the series and follows him on a journey across the world to discover and defeat an enemy organisation, Spectre. The film has several references to the previous Daniel Craig Bond films and features an interesting scene where Bond walks through a derelict MI6 building and is confronted by pictures of enemies and loved ones from previous films. This format, of continuing a story line instead of having stand alone films, has come at a time when the Bond films are moving towards a more accurate representation of the character and themes seen in the original books. 

Honesty time! Daniel Craig has never been my favourite Bond... I've been very vocal to fans of the films in the past about how the actor has never captured my attention and how I lost interest after his first appearance in Casino Royale. Even in a film that is arguably one of the best written Bond instalments, supported by brilliant actors and shot by brilliant creative minds - Craig was the least interesting thing in the film for me. I kind of wish he'd kept his mask on from the beginning of the film (which was an opening sequence that was shot beautifully and should be the envy of many filmmakers in the industry). It is an unpopular opinion but I cannot help but feel like Brosnan would have been more convincing. I'm looking forward to the regeneration of the Bond films when they eventually cast a new lead. This may re-ignite my love for the character and his adventures.

One of the things I was thoroughly looking forward to in this film was that the 'Bond girl' was going to be an appropriate age. For years, we've been watching this womanising spy lure and seduce younger women who become his companion for the duration of one film before he quickly discards them. However, for a change, Spectre was said to heavily feature Monica Bellucci. A woman who is actually four years older than her male co-star. All of the promotional material, from magazines to television interviews, suggested she would be a Bond girl and that James Bond was turning a corner towards more appropriately aged Bond girls. Even Craig himself spoke about how it was high time his character was with someone who was age appropriate in an interview with The Red Bulletin. But the reality is, Bellucci's character was simply another notch in Bond's belt. Appearing on screen for no more than 10 minutes, Bellucci provides information (and her body) to Bond before he disappears and becomes romantically attached to Madeleine Swan. Swan is played by Léa Seydoux, a beautiful woman - 17 years Craig's junior. The costumes, particularly those seen on Léa Seydoux, made me envious and gave us moments of what felt like 40s Hollywood glamour. The scene in which Bond and Swan are waiting for Oberhauser to collect them in the desert, is perhaps a perfect example of the aesthetics within Spectre being inspired by 1940s fashion and Hollywood glamour.

Andrew Scott was a surprising but welcome addition to Spectre. Playing the role of Max Denbigh, or 'C', Scott is a watered down version of his Sherlock character. With the same devious smile and mannerisms as Moriarity, C doesn't quite kill anyone himself but he is certainly responsible for many deaths worldwide. Partnered with Bond's enemy Oberhauser, he's taken over MI6 and plans to take control of the world's surveillance systems to help benefit the Spectre organisation. I find Andrew Scott's choice of roles to be limited - from what I've seen of him thus far - but excellently executed, which suggests that if Scott wanted to, he really could play a multitude of diverse roles. I do enjoy him as the sinister, smartly dressed character that he portays in both Spectre and Sherlock, and would love to see him develop his talent and choose more challenging roles.

The film has received astounding reviews and is already a huge hit with fans of both the films and the books. Admittedly, the plot was smart and I enjoyed the references to previous films. I thought that the opening sequence in Mexico city, shot in one continuous take, was captivating and a wonderful opening to a film that clearly attempts to adopt more artistic cinematography than its predecessors. Spectre moved at a steady pace without boring the audience which was helped by moments of comedic relief inbetween the high octane fight scenes. However, despite an otherwise wonderful film, I am still struggling to find Craig convincing as Bond. I cannot help but groan when he's seducing his many women and feel disinterested when he is supposed to be compelling. It seems that my days of enjoying Bond films are over unless I can some how get over my distain for the current Bond, James Bond.

Enemy of the State

French theorist Michel Foucault in his writing Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison looks at the development and structure of the penal system and how, through power and surveillance, the actions of the masses can be altered.[1] Foucault’s theories can be applied in an attempt to better understand several aspects of the film, from the film’s original inspiration to its success or failure at the box office. For example the 1998 Will Smith movie Enemy of the State is a perfect case to compare and contrast with the writing in Discipline and Punish.[2] In particular, the use of surveillance in the film in comparison to Foucault’s opinion that surveillance is increasingly rationalised as it extends into more areas of society, helps to define the new generation of technologically innovative individuals and the growing fear surrounding technology.

The opening credits of Enemy of the State are littered with CCTV footage and aerial surveillance clips, creating the immediate impression of intrusion and being watched from all angles at all times. The action starts when an old friend of lawyer Will Smith secretly gives him a video implicating an NSA official of killing a freedom-loving congressman. Soon Smith finds his house bugged, his bank accounts frozen, and his life upended. Meanwhile, he’s covered in GPS tracking devices (not just the obvious places like his phone and his car but also his watch, his pen and even his shoes are compromised), which allow the NSA’s hackers (played by, among others, Seth Green and Jack Black, who provide comedic relief in an otherwise serious film) to follow him via satellite imagery, helicopter pursuit, wire frames of the buildings he enters, and the occasional camera hidden in a jacket button. He finally finds a friend in Gene Hackman, playing a rogue surveillance expert — a character modelled after his earlier role in The Conversation. And throughout, the viewer is given small amounts of information about a ‘privacy bill’ that is being passed in the film (a bill that is in fact looking to decrease privacy in an attempt to ‘protect’) which is not unlike several bills and legislations that have been brought before the government in recent years. 

The film explores several of society’s biggest fears: highly efficient and organised crime orchestrated by the government, GPS tracking individuals, hackers and phone tapping. ‘While some people may have read social science or philosophical work on surveillance, a much larger audience will have seen a surveillance movie.’[3] These films are a way of audiences to see their potential future. And it seems, in this particular film, that the only solution to the afore-mentioned problems is to be a witty, street smart lawyer with an abundance of luck. But in order to analyse the film, it is important to first understand Foucault and his theories within Discipline and Punish.

Foucault deliberates surveillance in relation to Bentham’s Panopticon which details how individuals begin to monitor themselves when they believe they are being watched. The Panopticon is an architectural model comprised of a large central tower in the middle of a prison. Although, prisoners cannot see in, and therefore cannot confirm they are being watched, they assume they are and behave as if they were. Hence, much of the power of this model lies in the fact that prisoners do not know when they are being watched and thus ‘must regulate themselves.’[4] Foucault sees this individually sustained and produced mode of surveillance ‘resonating across various modern institutions.’[5] 

Power is key to Foucault’s work in Discipline and Punish, especially its relationship with people and how that can be changed and affected by people’s actions. Foucault believed that power was unlike the forces that affect the human body, instead it involves the control and adjustment of someone’s will. This in itself, is far more dangerous than the control of the body through violence or punishment as it makes the individual conform by their own (reshaped) will. Foucault suggests that power, as it is present throughout society in each and every relationship, is unstable and unpredictable. And because of this, the state does not have ultimate authority, although there is an element of control when we look at our institutions, like schools, hospitals and prisons.

Educators and doctors are among the professions that have an unchartered amount of control over society without the associated threat that the government has. After government infiltration of these institutions, society can easily find itself under the power of the state. Society begins to feel watched and monitored by these organisations and as a result ‘we watch ourselves because we know that we are being watched by these regulating presences.’[6] This, the introduction of ‘judges of normality’, is the biggest way of state claiming power in today’s society other than the penal system.[7]

In Enemy of the State, the control of the government officials is exaggerated to best exploit social fears of dictatorship. Smith’s character’s life is overturned and destroyed by a government agency in an attempt to cover the crime at the beginning of the film. The entire story surrounds the idea of government involvement in everyday life and how it can be used as a destructive force. One of the most effective moments in the film is at the very beginning where the viewer is shown a montage of CCTV footage. In relation to Foucault, whose work is best known for its analysis of discourse, this is an entirely visual display of the same principles in an entirely new and unexpected way. ‘As cinema is principally a visual medium, it is perhaps understandable that his work is not, at first glance, the most likely toolkit with which to analyse representations on screen.’[8]

During the film, the dominant power force shifts between the good guys and the bad guys but, as per the Hollywood formula, the good trumps evil. Foucault would debate the transfer and allocation of power and how it has become a currency in society. Used and traded in an attempt to gain more. Foucault’s theories help to emphasise one of the film’s subplots. The underlying story of the ‘privacy bill’ set to change the society. No longer would privacy be accepted as a basic human right, instead the government would be allowed to undertake projects (which it turns out they already do) openly spying and eavesdropping on the lives of its constituents. In terms of surveillance specifically, Foucault’s work concentrates on the dynamics of disciplinary power. And it seems that Foucault’s interest lay in the ‘disciplinary power of administration, through which activity is reorganised in order to make it more viable and more amenable to observation.’[9] Foucault adds fodder to this argument as he wrote about a monopoly of power with the state having primary control.

Smith’s partner in crime, literally, is revealed to be a former operative who went rogue after realising the corruption within the company. This shows how dangerous the government officials can be. Well trained enough to trick and entrap the ones who trained him, Hackman’s character becomes the ultimate authority in the film. It becomes apparent that knowledge is power within the film, another comparison that can be traced back to Foucault’s writing. He believed that knowledge and its relationship to truth results in a connection between knowledge and power as power is obtained through truth. In short, facts are truth, knowledge and power in one. Hackman seems to be the all-knowing source of power in the film as he has experience with both sides of the argument. And has information that benefits the hero and endangers the villain.

Finally, Foucault’s idea behind discipline as a controlling force. Foucault believed that discipline was used as a means of controlling the lower classes and coercing the body to conform. It does this by regulating movement and dividing up space and time for such movement, much like a timetable. The use of the rank system in the military is another example of this, along with the exercises that they carry out. When we introduce disciplined methods, control becomes infinitely easier. But as time went on, Foucault notes the change in this concept. He mentions a change after the 18th Century when discipline was being used to control whole populations rather than just select groups of co-operating individuals. The government relies heavily on mass control in order to function.

Foucault discusses Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and surveillance as a disciplinary mechanism. Bentham’s concept of the panopticon is used to present surveillance as an instrument through which people conduct their actions while aware of their own constant visibility. Following Foucault’s significant model of conception and surveillance in Discipline and Punish, where he describes how the Panopticon prison replaced physical discipline with a system of observation, it is ‘frequently claimed that contemporary culture operates similar scopic regimes.’[10] This can also be seen in several crime and surveillance based films, however often at an exaggerated or extreme level.

Enemy of the State has a central theme of surveillance and invasion of privacy. From the outset we see the government trespassing on the lives of its public, all under the guise of catching criminals. In this particular case, the viewer interprets surveillance as an intrusive force rather than a beneficial tool like the one detail in Bentham’s Panopticon. Smith’s character discovers through this two hour movie the extents that the government is going to in order to ‘protect’ their citizens and how little the public know about it. The film’s hackers, Jack Black and Seth Green, are able to hack into hundreds of different angles and software to trap our hero. This brings into question how valuable surveillance is outside of prison walls. Of course, the cameras are detriment to the hackers but in terms of protecting and serving the public, the CCTV cameras and hidden microphones only seem to hinder the innocent.

In conclusion, although not considered an ideal tool for comparison with film, Foucault’s theories displayed in Discipline and Punish can be used in the examining of modern surveillance and crime films, in particular the 1998 Enemy of the State. The film and Foucault’s writing aim to show how some groups, which were previously exempt from routine surveillance, are now increasingly being monitored by both state and non-state institutions. Another interesting conclusion to draw is the idea that ‘the abilities of surveillance technologies have [today] surpassed Orwell’s dystopic vision.’[11] With the advanced technological era that we are in, it is no surprise that the public are fearing a world like the one portrayed in Enemy of the State. The film also works to create the image of an exaggerated version of current society, which has the viewer question how important government involvement is in everyday life outside of the basic services like the police.


Bibliography

---

[1] Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1995)

[2] Enemy of the State, dir. By Tony Scott (Buena Vista Pictures, 1998)

[3] Sebastien Lefait, Surveillance on Screen: Monitoring Contemporary Films and Television Programs (Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2013), p. 5

[4] Greg Dimitriadis and Cameron McCarthy, ‘Creating a New Panopticon: Columbine, Cultural Studies and the Uses of Foucault’, in Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality, ed. by Jack Bratich, Jeremy Packer, Cameron McCarthy (New York: State University of New York, 2003), p. 278

[5] Greg Dimitriadis and Cameron McCarthy, ‘Creating a New Panopticon: Columbine, Cultural Studies and the Uses of Foucault’, in Foucault, Cultural Studies, and Governmentality, ed. by Jack Bratich, Jeremy Packer, Cameron McCarthy (New York: State University of New York, 2003), p. 278

[6] Stephen D. Brookfield and Stephen Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching: Tools and Techniques for Democratic Classrooms, 2^nd Edition, (San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2005), p. 289

[7] Michel Foucault, ‘Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison’, in The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, ed. by Vincent B. Leitch, 2^nd edn. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010), p. 1498

[8] Lisa Downing, Film and Ethics: Foreclosed Encounters (Oxon: Routledge, 2010), p.120

[9] Inga Kroener and Daniel Neyland, ‘New Technologies, Security and Surveillance’, in Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, ed. by David Lyon, Kirstie Ball, Kevin Haggerty (Oxon: Routledge, 2012), p. 144

[10] Maggie Humm, Feminism and Film (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997), p.39

[11] Serazer Pekerman, ‘The Schizoanalysis of European Surveillance Films’, in Deleuze and Film, ed. by David Martin Jones, William Brown (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012), p. 125

Suffragette

It would seem that filmmakers are not quite finished with our biopic filled year! Last year the Oscars was overloaded with biopics from every corner of the globe and it seems like British director Sarah Gavron isn't ready to move on just yet. Opening in October 2015, Suffragette boasts a strong lineup of British and Hollywood faves. Meryl Streep joins Carey Mulligan and Helena Bonham Carter to fight for womens rights in the late 19th Century. Based on true events, audiences follow Mulligan and Co. as they forge a path for the Feminist Movement and protest the governments rules restricting the activities of the female gender. 

However, as similarly stated by Sarah Jackson in her review for the Guardian, the film fails to acknowledge the many different types of women and types of action that were taken towards the same cause. Although told from the perspective of a working class woman (Mulligan), the type of woman who would have been the foundations of the Suffragette movement, the film fails to address the already existing movement at the time the film was set. At the very beginning of the film the audience is made aware of existing movements but this is limited to a single sentence. The pressure of films that cover such monumental moments in history is always to produce accurate yet entertaining interpretations of the events. Whilst my knowledge of the initial movement is shamefully sparse, I cannot help but feel like the film was missing the opportunity to display some of the different steps that were taken towards equality. As perfectly and appropriately quoted by Jackson: The Suffragettes weren't just white, middle-class women throwing stones.

As for the performances within the film, Mulligan continues to make me feel disappointed with each role that she tackles. I've never been a huge fan and this role made me yearn for more. Her face never conveys much and frankly, I thought her to be too soft for the working class character. And for one that had been through so much, I was surprised that by the end of the film, she still looked composed, healthy and with a fragile demeanour. Even when we hear her shout and scream, it felt hesitant. The only scene that I found Mulligan to be compelling was when her character was being force fed in prison. Her screams were penetrating and difficult to listen to.  

I've always been a huge fan of Meryl Streep and I'm always excited to see which roles she picks next. After the painful experience that was Ricki and the Flash, I was expecting big, big things from her. Streep's involvement in Suffragette did not shock. She has been a very vocal supporter of humans rights and the feminist movement. Therefore, it seems natural for Streep to jump at the opportunity to further publicise the struggles that women have faced in order to be viewed as equals. Her time on screen was small, mostly her character was spoken of but never seen as she was on the run from the government. Acting as the leader, Streep's appearance on screen is focused on one speech delivered from a balcony to crowds of passionate women. But despite being seen as the true leader of the cause, Helena Bonham Carter certainly ruled the roost in East London. I found her portrayal to be convincing and moving. This role, as Edith Ellyn, has only solidified my belief that Carter is one of the best actors working today.

As a woman, I was aware of the contents of the film being of significant importance to how my life could have been had there not been a change. The film was an interesting and compellingly told story of why it's important to fight for your rights (to party?). On a serious note, Suffragette shines a light on issues that I believe many women today take for granted. Hopefully, this film can educate people of all genders on why inclusivity and acceptance along with government supported rights is the only way our society will grow and develop. We need to start treating others with the respect they deserve and not like lesser beings just because of their gender. One of the most emotional parts of the film came just before the credits. As with many biopics, footage was used from the original events that inspired the film. This was then followed by the dates that women were legally allowed to vote from around the world. Unfortunately, this highlighted that women in some countries were only able to vote as of this year, and some are still waiting for that right. 

This film could easily be a strong beginning to the pre-award-season season. I'm excited to see how the film will stand against those that are released in early 2016 when the general public, once again, turn their attention to the best films that the previous year had to offer. Regardless of Suffragette's success in box office or amongst critics, I'm sure this film will be shown for years to come in high school history classes to young minds that aren't quite ready to understand where they stand in this world and why their gender is a pivotal part of that.