tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89674272515527816162023-11-16T10:56:20.594-08:00Representation of Class & StatusDBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-32194657778847449472019-05-07T07:09:00.001-07:002023-04-14T03:05:57.221-07:00Tess of the D'UrbevillesA great clip to look at for <span style="color: magenta;">social class and status</span>; there's a lot going on with every technical element here to frame and comment on this aspect of representation, <span style="color: magenta;">manipulating</span> the audience towards a likely <span style="color: magenta;">(preferred) reading</span> through multiple, often combined, <span style="color: magenta;">signifiers</span>.<br />
<br />
[alas, the previously embedded clip has been disabled]<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/qaGKs6RlUV4" width="560"></iframe><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #38761d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;">A NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS</span>...</span><span style="color: #38761d; font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">I use them frequently simply because of the scale of blogging I do, as a 2-finger non-typist! <span style="color: #990000;">You <i>can </i>use abbreviations in an exam, <i>but </i>should only do so where you've first used the full term (and put your intended abbreviation in brackets)</span>. Given there are different ways of denoting the same shot (some use 'big' as a step before 'extreme' for example) <i style="font-weight: bold;">don't </i>take the risk of losing marks by using abbreviations that some examiners may not understand and/or welcome.</span></blockquote>
<br />
This is a sequence which in some regards <span style="color: magenta;"><b>frames </b></span>social class in a highly conventional, <b><span style="color: magenta;">normative*</span></b> fashion, employing common <span style="color: magenta;"><b>tropes </b></span>or <span style="color: magenta;"><b>stereotypes </b></span>(such as the drunken, unintelligent peasant, Tess' father), but also includes some more subtle, ambivalent elements. We start with a conventional <span style="color: magenta;">establishing shot</span>, an <span style="color: magenta;">extreme long shot (ELS)</span> foregrounding the rural setting. With the BBC logo, we might easily expect a <span style="color: magenta;"><b>costume drama</b></span> centred on upper class characters, something the Beeb is internationally known for. The <span style="color: magenta;">exaggerated diegetic</span> sound of birds cheeping reinforces the <span style="color: magenta;">signification</span> of rural (this <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ambient sound</b></span> also contributes to the smooth, unobtrusive <span style="color: magenta;"><b>continuity editing</b></span> style), and the next shot, a <span style="color: magenta;">medium shot (MS)</span>, helps <span style="color: magenta;">signify</span> the time period through the heavy garb and particularly the hat.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: yellow;"><b><span style="color: magenta;">normative*</span></b></span> the repetition of certain stereotypes has the <i>effect </i>of defining what is seen as normal, or common sense; if we see over and over again representations of gay men as <span style="color: magenta;"><b>effeminate</b></span>, for example, this frames how many people will view gay men. You can also write of '<span style="color: magenta;"><b>normativising</b></span>'. <span style="color: magenta;"><b>Heteronormative </b></span>is another specific use of the term. Consider the following shot:</span></blockquote>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_okaJW8xFpW9zHkz4RVWdBAbwfPKD7Fx5M5wYdxDHSpxTLAK5StusrlEtJXLDH9EYo2JbRn2jVbV688piAf2i03KXNFNTE5ktBayjaU-SjOH-G8cFfJSHIRo8_tq8bSCMFpyiJUWIASUB/s1600/Father+MS+looks+up+to+parson.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="350" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_okaJW8xFpW9zHkz4RVWdBAbwfPKD7Fx5M5wYdxDHSpxTLAK5StusrlEtJXLDH9EYo2JbRn2jVbV688piAf2i03KXNFNTE5ktBayjaU-SjOH-G8cFfJSHIRo8_tq8bSCMFpyiJUWIASUB/s1600/Father+MS+looks+up+to+parson.tiff" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif; font-size: small;">Working class characters are routinely represented as of limited intelligence, and often with stubble (and filthy clothing) to further <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signify </b></span>the shortfalls in their character/morality (they are often villainous as well as cretinous). We see this in many TV dramas (<i>e.g. </i>Zak Dingle in <i>Emmerdale</i>, Spike [Rhys Ifans] as working-class and Welsh in <i>Notting Hill</i>, one of many examples from WT/Curtis flicks). The combined impact of such representations is to encourage the perception of the working class as lazy, unintelligent, villainous, filthy <i>etc</i>; such <b><span style="color: magenta;">discourses</span> </b>help enable political concepts such as 'dole scroungers' - you can see similar tropes in 'reality' shows such as <i>Benefits Street</i>.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFp3dSHOUbRKoNXODhlMFl6OVddDfOwEXIXfiAEEUZ756PW-6Y4pF_5XVz27_Sx9QwIOwAzYhx_vBggFkzyWiOewcqkBkDJRJRzEcopgTRu8OclBevaQqsZIudQxlXhfV-2nuRcZBNBeWV/s1600/Zak+Dingle.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFp3dSHOUbRKoNXODhlMFl6OVddDfOwEXIXfiAEEUZ756PW-6Y4pF_5XVz27_Sx9QwIOwAzYhx_vBggFkzyWiOewcqkBkDJRJRzEcopgTRu8OclBevaQqsZIudQxlXhfV-2nuRcZBNBeWV/s1600/Zak+Dingle.tiff" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfHxNY8yqVdPTNsmAm_rlNFgkzW48jZkzkXdCf2vd7614cfMZmktM42o-X86724-ZDrZY3V0O_gWyNmue22LoypqxptF5e23eVXBryKadfO29DkoAohOmvPcUv_nWKuRwFox_38-s95rt-/s1600/NHill+Spike+door.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="198" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfHxNY8yqVdPTNsmAm_rlNFgkzW48jZkzkXdCf2vd7614cfMZmktM42o-X86724-ZDrZY3V0O_gWyNmue22LoypqxptF5e23eVXBryKadfO29DkoAohOmvPcUv_nWKuRwFox_38-s95rt-/s1600/NHill+Spike+door.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">THE PEASANT (working-class if modern) FATHER V PARSON BINARY </span></b></span><br />
Conventionally, we might expect a character we follow from the outset to be <i><b>a</b></i> or <i><b>the</b></i> <span style="color: magenta;">central protagonist</span>. The editing style is unobtrusive, with <span style="color: magenta;">classic continuity techniques</span> of <span style="color: magenta;">shot reverse shot</span> (reinforced by <span style="color: magenta;">framing</span> the parson on the left third and the father on the right third, utilising the <span style="color: magenta;">rule of thirds</span>) and the <span style="color: magenta;">180 degree rule</span> observed. Even before we get the stark use of angles, with the minister literally looking down on Tess' father and a corresponding <span style="color: magenta;">low angle</span> representing the father looking up to the minister, we see the father bow his head and touch the brim of his hat, <span style="color: magenta;">denoting*</span> his respect for his social superior.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: yellow;"><b>denoting*</b></span> this can be confusing: where the intended symbolic meaning (signified) is <i>very </i>obvious you can use either denotes or connotes</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
The audience are encouraged to <span style="color: magenta;"><b>identify and empathise with</b></span> the father through editing choices; while we cut to <span style="color: magenta;"><b>MLS</b></span>, and a relatively <span style="color: magenta;"><b>long take</b></span>, to observe the father's quizzical reaction to the 'Sir John' comment, the minister is next shown in <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ELS</b></span>. The ensuing <span style="color: magenta;"><b>shot reverse shot</b></span> sequence subtly reinforces the class <span style="color: magenta;"><b>binary</b>*</span>, or power relations, at play, with a MS of the minister easily dominating the frame while Mr D'Urbeville (Mr D) is both literally and figuratively smaller, framed in a MLS (though when his emotions are emphasised he is framed in MCU).<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: magenta;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: yellow;"><b>binary*</b></span> it <i>may </i>be a good idea to use the full term; you could also add the responsible theorist (<b>Levi-Strauss</b>) in brackets <i>to <span style="color: #6aa84f;">make sure your use of terminology is recognised by the examiner</span>!!! </i>There are so many terms/concepts linked with Media Studies you can't always take this for granted.</span></span></blockquote>
<br />
It is also notable that the two are consistently separately <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed</b></span>; we only get one <span style="color: magenta;"><b>two shot</b></span>, other than when initially <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed </b></span>in <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ELS </b></span>as they pass each other, and this is a <span style="color: magenta;"><b>short take</b></span>. This could be simply to reduce the repetition of the repeated <span style="color: magenta;"><b>shot reverse shot</b></span>, or, as it coincides with the minister explaining that Mr D is of aristocratic heritage, could also be read (employing <span style="color: magenta;"><b>Stuart Hall's concept of the preferred/negotiated/oppositional reading</b></span>) as subtly <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signifying </b></span>the potential for equality of status between the two. However, the shortness of the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>take </b></span>undermines that <span style="color: magenta;"><b>reading</b></span>, and we're straight back to a<span style="color: magenta;"><b> shot reverse shot</b></span> sequence again - Mr D is <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed </b></span>with the horse (which is better groomed than he is!), but not the minister.<br />
<br />
The <b><span style="color: magenta;">mise-en-scene</span></b> further reduces any <b><span style="color: magenta;">polysemy</span> </b>that might be read into the comparative status of the pair, helping to <b><span style="color: magenta;">anchor</span> </b>the sense of a <b><span style="color: magenta;">binary</span> </b>here: the minister is clean shaven and has an immaculate white collar, with black clothing and gloves further <b><span style="color: magenta;">connoting</span> </b>his respectable, professional status, while Mr D is unshaven with greasy, lank hair, has a filthy collar, and heavy brown clothing <b><span style="color: magenta;">signifying</span> </b>his manual labourer status. His bare-handed patting of the horse is a further simple but effective <b><span style="color: magenta;">signifier</span> </b>of this difference, and of the probability that he works with his hands.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">FRAMING THE FATHER AS POSSIBLE PROTAGONIST, DENOTING DRAMA</span></b></span><br />
Despite this, we must note that it is Mr D that we follow through editing, not his social superior, with the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ELS </b></span>used to <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signify </b></span>the long journey ahead. The <span style="color: magenta;"><b>non-diegetic</b></span> strings-based music is quite downbeat and mournful, <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signifying </b></span>that if Mr D is our <span style="color: magenta;"><b>central protagonist</b></span>, he is likely to face tragedy on what <span style="color: magenta;"><b>Campbell</b></span>, with his <span style="color: magenta;"><b>monomyth theory</b></span>, denoted as '<span style="color: magenta;"><b>the hero's journey</b></span>', whilst also very simply <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signifying </b></span>that this is a drama! The music is a combination of long drawn out violin notes and quicker harp notes, a combination designed to produce tension in the audience (through the physiology of unconsciously disrupting heartbeat rates). We have been provided with fairly minimal <span style="color: magenta;"><b>exposition </b></span>through the dialogue with which to establish the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>equilibrium </b></span>(using <span style="color: magenta;"><b>Todorov</b></span>'s narrative structure), but have swiftly been presented with one element of the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>dis-equilibrium</b></span>, this potential shift in Mr D's family status.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">MAIN TITLE + CENTRAL PROTAGONIST</span></b></span><br />
Of course, the drama is an <span style="color: magenta;"><b>adaptation </b></span>of <i>Tess of the D'Urbevilles</i>, clearly <span style="color: magenta;"><b>denoting </b></span>Tess, his daughter, as the actual <span style="color: magenta;"><b>central protagonist</b></span>. The white <span style="color: magenta;"><b>serif font</b></span> used for the titles suitably <span style="color: magenta;"><b>denotes</b></span> serious drama, with the particular <span style="color: magenta;"><b>serif </b></span>style also signifying the past setting. As these continue to appear, <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed </b></span>with open countryside, there is scope for a presumably <span style="color: magenta;"><b>oppositional reading </b></span>that this is a cheap, low budget production, with none of the village, town or castle settings that we might anticipate from BBC <span style="color: magenta;"><b>costume drama</b></span>, only the costume itself establishing the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>verisimilitude </b></span>of the historic setting.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #990000;"><span style="font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">NB: you almost certainly WON'T get titles included in the clip, as you are not being tested on INSTITUTIONAL knowledge </span></span></blockquote>
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">TRANSITIONING TO A NEW SCENE</span></b></span><br />
The music cuts to a contrastingly upbeat folk tune at the moment the 'Tess...' title appears, with the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>transition </b></span>between the two scenes established both the convention of the upwards-<span style="color: magenta;"><b>tilting </b></span>camera and the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>focus pull </b></span>on the marching band, who initially appear out of focus. We get a fresh <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ELS </b></span>as an <span style="color: magenta;"><b>establishing shot</b></span> for this new scene, enabling us to see three distinct groups within the rural, apparently coastal, scene.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">SIGNIFYING SOCIAL CLASS OF DANCERS + BAND</span></b></span><br />
The actual dresses of the young women are themselves <span style="color: magenta;"><b>polysemic</b></span>, and could be read as of any social class, dependent largely on the viewer's familiarity with period dresses, or the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>simulacra </b></span>of these (as <span style="color: magenta;"><b>Baudrillard </b></span>might say), but the pieces of hay they are holding provide <span style="color: magenta;"><b>anchoring </b><b>connotations </b></span>of working class, or peasantry, as does the clothing of the men in the marching band, with heavy brown material much like Mr D's. If we were in any doubt over this, we might consider that a <span style="color: magenta;"><b>commutation test </b></span>would suggest that upper class female characters would most likely appear dancing in a grand hall or ballroom, not out in meadows.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DIFFERENTIATING TESS</span></b></span><br />
The positioning of Gemma Arterton's Tess as the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>central protagonist</b></span>, and the character the audience should identify with, is unsubtle, to the point of her <span style="color: magenta;"><b>central framing</b></span> in a <span style="color: magenta;"><b>MCU </b></span>(which simply <span style="color: magenta;"><b>cuts </b></span>in on the preceding <span style="color: magenta;"><b>LS </b></span>where she is <span style="color: magenta;"><b>centrally framed</b></span>) where the actress' name is framed with her, and the other young women around her are out of <span style="color: magenta;"><b>focus </b></span>in this very <span style="color: magenta;"><b>tight, shallow depth of focus</b></span>. She also stands out from this group of five by virtue of her darker hair, which may be coincidental or may be one element of <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framing </b></span>her relative superiority to the girls around her.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DIFFERENTIATING TESS + THE FATHER AS 'THE OTHER'</span></b></span><br />
The <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ellipsis </b></span>here (from walking along to dancing) is in keeping with the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>continuity editing</b></span> and is disguised rather than a <span style="color: magenta;"><b>jump cut</b></span>. Tess is continually <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed </b></span>in shots, with the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>variable focus</b></span> often used as a tool to <span style="color: magenta;"><b>anchor </b></span>her positioning as the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>central protagonist</b></span>. This is reinforced when we consider how her father, who we might initially have <span style="color: magenta;"><b>read </b></span>as the lead role, is framed in this sequence. He remains in <span style="color: magenta;"><b>ELS </b></span>throughout, clearly relegating him to secondary status. The audience is positioned to <span style="color: magenta;"><b>empathise </b></span>with Tess' shame and embarassment at her father's drunken ranting, playing into a very common working class <span style="color: magenta;"><b>stereotype </b></span>(the seeming absurdity of his claims to grandeur <span style="color: magenta;"><b>connoted </b></span>through the cart he is being transported on;<i><b> no horse for him</b></i>!) whilst also differentiating her from him. We repeatedly get Tess' <span style="color: magenta;"><b>point-of-view</b></span> in this sequence, and her father is clearly framed as <span style="color: magenta;"><b>'the other</b></span>'<span style="color: magenta;"><b>*</b></span> here. His accent was notably coarse and regional, and his language simplistic, compared to the minister, but here Tess, whilst having a regional, clearly rural accent, is to some extent differentiated as slightly more refined than her peers.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="color: magenta;"><span style="background-color: yellow;"><b>*the other</b></span>: this is a very useful concept to help with understanding representations within a clip. In most cases 1 or more characters are clearly denoted as outsiders; different, excluded from the main group, with techniques such as cutting away when they speak (or simply giving limited speech) reinforcing this. look for character/s that don't comfortably fit within the group or culture represented as normal on screen, and consider how negatively they are portrayed. </span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DIFFERENTIATING + BINARY WITHIN A BINARY: IDENTIFICATION WITH 1 POSH CHARACTER</span></b></span><br />
The band's music forms an <span style="color: magenta;"><b>audio bridge</b></span> with the next sequence, another <span style="color: magenta;"><b>continuity editing</b></span> device, and it is notable here that one of the three characters is positioned as more significant than the others. There are <span style="color: magenta;"><b>two and three shots</b></span>, but only the character who remains standing is <span style="color: magenta;"><b>framed </b></span>by himself, in a series of <span style="color: magenta;"><b>MCUs</b></span>, including when the others are speaking, subtly <span style="color: magenta;"><b>denoting </b></span>his importance and helping encourage audience <span style="color: magenta;"><b>identification </b></span>with him. If were left in any doubt as to their elevated social status, which appears clear through their light-coloured, thin material clothing (in contrast to the heavy, brown clothing worn by Mr D and the bandsmen), and the book-reading, the derisive "dance with country hoydens" clearly <span style="color: magenta;"><b>anchors </b></span>the <span style="color: magenta;"><b>binary </b></span>here.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><b><span style="font-family: "helvetica neue" , "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">DIFFERENTIATING TESS FROM OTHER WOMEN + FATHER</span></b></span><br />
We get a series of group <span style="color: magenta;"><b>MLSs </b><b>intercut </b></span>with <span style="color: magenta;"><b>MCUs </b></span>of Tess. There is a subtle, if ironic, link to her father earlier, as we see her bow her head and close her eyes, <span style="color: magenta;"><b>denoting </b></span>her recognition of inferior social status, but also coy or virtuous embarrassment at the brazenness of her friend asking to dance. We see here that there is differentiation in the clothing; the prominent cleavage of the 'bold' woman who asks for the dance is similar to the common trope of the busty working class barmaid. We see this subtle positioning of Tess as being of higher moral standing by cutting back to her showing relief when the man fails to pick her bold friend. This remains rather <span style="color: magenta;"><b>polysemic </b></span>at this stage, but alongside the basic class <span style="color: magenta;"><b>binaries </b></span>of the father and minister and the dancers and young men we can also see some <span style="color: magenta;"><b>signification </b></span>of <span style="color: magenta;"><b>binaries </b></span>within the same social class; Tess and her father are differentiated, Tess is further <span style="color: magenta;"><b>juxtaposed </b></span>with her bolder, coarser friend, and the young man himself is framed as a man of action while his two colleagues are rendered buffoonish comic figures. The <span style="color: magenta;"><b>pace of editing</b></span> is fairly slow, with some faster sequences when the young women are dancing, which might suggest a mature target audience.<br />
<br />
The assumed 'natural' authority of the wealthier characters would certainly be a theme to explore to help get into the wider issues reflected within the clip. <br />
<br />
<br />DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-35971057170031181732019-02-24T08:41:00.001-08:002023-04-14T03:06:23.278-07:002014 Exam: Downton Abbey/Cinema HardwareBelow is the script of an A-grade exam from an IGS student, analysing the representation of class and status in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4rLZZ2X-OM"><b>a Downton Abbey clip</b></a> (it can't be embedded) and answering the British Cinema question:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "georgia" , "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;">The
increases in hardware and content in media industries has been
significant in recent years. discuss the effect this has had on
institutions and audiences in the media area you have studied.</span></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
Here's the actual exam paper (click to enlarge or click <a href="https://ncrafts.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/june-2014.jpg"><b>here</b></a>)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinpTwHseq8xAfPVm9dr7S9EFe-m8LHs96cpDn9-i3Xw5SeJ2yzr5Hwm5vN0c04UCMo_hTydlf5Yj8lmDzR0sgabUaL0On1qSsHQX8EfKRvZDfY8tiOXkfO5UFoligGYxlwpGGNJ22ZXLg/s1600/G322+exam+paper+2014.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="452" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinpTwHseq8xAfPVm9dr7S9EFe-m8LHs96cpDn9-i3Xw5SeJ2yzr5Hwm5vN0c04UCMo_hTydlf5Yj8lmDzR0sgabUaL0On1qSsHQX8EfKRvZDfY8tiOXkfO5UFoligGYxlwpGGNJ22ZXLg/s1600/G322+exam+paper+2014.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="510" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/45079570" style="border-width: 1px; border: 1px solid #CCC; margin-bottom: 5px; max-width: 100%;" width="477"> </iframe> <br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px;">
<b> <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/DB3igs/pp-g322-2014-85-100" target="_blank" title="PP g322 2014 85 100">PP g322 2014 85 100</a> </b> from <b><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/DB3igs" target="_blank">DB3igs</a></b> </div>
<br />
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;"></span>
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;">You
can read the Examiner's Report below; this analyses what students did
well in and what they struggled with, covering coursework as well as
both parts of the exam. As there are many coursework options, you need
to look for the video section on coursework.</span><br />
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="510" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/45080151" style="border-width: 1px; border: 1px solid #CCC; margin-bottom: 5px; max-width: 100%;" width="477"> </iframe> </span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 5px;">
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;"><b> <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/DB3igs/2014-as-examiners-report" target="_blank" title="2014 AS Examiners report">2014 AS Examiners report</a> </b> from <b><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/DB3igs" target="_blank">DB3igs</a></b> </span></div>
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;">
</span>
<br />
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<span class="a" style="left: 547px; top: 1301px; word-spacing: 1px;">If you want to try another <i>D.Abbey </i>clip, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq7SdgQZOzg"><b>here's another</b></a> (nearly 6mins long). </span>DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-8791612413172553872016-07-26T00:13:00.001-07:002019-04-24T00:50:56.435-07:00Heritage TV/film as conservative and, gosh, posh<b><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/25/backwards-to-the-future-how-britains-nostalgia-industry-is-thriving?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger">Backwards to the future: how Britain’s nostalgia industry is thriving</a></b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_fT8BLxPn6CzvSrG1V_PsEtv3C_fEWClpUwWgZHF27u06PLCIJMNnUONFWBjyeaTHqHvAOT8P4DzpwojttZOBJA0jyyEMDPkNI0j9FHzsTWBom7tR5K6v3MNXEy2kd7a5ikhfus9C27pt/s1600/repclass1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="744" data-original-width="799" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_fT8BLxPn6CzvSrG1V_PsEtv3C_fEWClpUwWgZHF27u06PLCIJMNnUONFWBjyeaTHqHvAOT8P4DzpwojttZOBJA0jyyEMDPkNI0j9FHzsTWBom7tR5K6v3MNXEy2kd7a5ikhfus9C27pt/s320/repclass1.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-6767576175143675862016-07-03T23:33:00.001-07:002019-04-24T00:52:24.191-07:00Caroline Aherne a rare working class voice<b><a href="http://gu.com/p/4nkct?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger">Caroline Aherne’s death ‘leaves British TV short of working-class voices’</a></b>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6HZTNtcKGRQvdqFg5H-R7WK0wNPe8p7VLPQKbnGUt2Qt4XCohkfQXPOO-u3reyd8nxGb926eRrHbXBdtN1qVdRBTWu2Go0XvAAAZAsExAwhV_RZhp24WQKN-Vt8P1PojyQnRXYG1-ZRYF/s1600/repclass1.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="838" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj6HZTNtcKGRQvdqFg5H-R7WK0wNPe8p7VLPQKbnGUt2Qt4XCohkfQXPOO-u3reyd8nxGb926eRrHbXBdtN1qVdRBTWu2Go0XvAAAZAsExAwhV_RZhp24WQKN-Vt8P1PojyQnRXYG1-ZRYF/s320/repclass1.PNG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-41521007509393386142015-02-24T02:30:00.001-08:002015-02-24T02:30:32.110-08:00Playlist of past/practice clipsYou can use these to set yourself practice exercises - feel free to hand in any subsequent essays for marking and feedback:<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLFB92252769CEE92F" width="560"></iframe>DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-76578613932198106542012-05-22T01:07:00.004-07:002012-05-22T01:07:22.097-07:00UK's lack of social mobilityThis might help to put in perspective some of the <i>arguable </i>consequences of rendering the lower social classes (socio-economic groups DE) invisible, or simply representing them as criminal and/or unintelligent, and routinely presenting ABC1s as the heroes/protagonists of our TV + film dramas: a report in The Guardian about the UK's worsening lack of social mobility. (That means the ability to succeed in a society irrespective of the social class you're born into; the idea that anyone can achieve social mobility and become rich and powerful is an important ideology, expressed as the 'American dream' for example).<br />
You can read the stats from the article at <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts"><b>http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/22/social-mobility-data-charts</b></a> - a sample follows below:<b></b><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
Here's what the figures show:<br />
• Britain has some of the lowest
social mobility in the developed world - the OECD figures show our
earnings in the UK are more likely to reflect our fathers' than any
other country<br /> <br />• Social mobility hasn't changed since the 1970s -
and in some ways has got worse. For every one person born in the 1970s
in the poorest fifth of society and going to university, there would be
four undergrads from the top fifth of society. But if you were born in
the 1980s, there would be five<br />
• 24% of vice-chancellors, 32% of
MPs, 51% of top Medics, 54% of FTSE-100 chief execs, 54% of top
journalists, 70% of High Court judges …went to private school, though
only 7% of the population do<br />
• Education is an engine of social
mobility. But in the UK, achievement is not balanced fairly - for the
poorest fifth in society, 46% have mothers with no qualifications at
all. For the richest, it's only 3%<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/5/21/1337611972497/Social-mobility-charts-008.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/5/21/1337611972497/Social-mobility-charts-008.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Click on the image for the full chart</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
• Parental influence still
makes a big difference to a child's education in the UK, especially
compared to other countries - in fact in the UK the influence of your
parents is as important as the quality of the school - unlike Germany,
say, where the school has a much bigger role<br />
• Higher education is
not evenly balanced either in terms of aspirations - 81% of the richest
fifth of the population think their child will go to university,
compared to 53% of the poorest<br />
• … or achievment: 49% of the poorest will apply to university and get in, compared to 77% of the richest<br />
•
There is a strong link between a lack of social mobility and inequality
- and the UK has both. Only Portugal is more unequal with less social
mobility<br />
• If you are at the top, the rewards are high - the top
1% of the UK population has a greater share of national income than at
any time since the 1930s</blockquote>
<br />
<br />DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-22198612099703994272011-06-12T04:13:00.000-07:002011-06-12T04:15:27.431-07:00Chav: What's in a word?Interesting article here which rehearses some of the arguments around how specific terms can embody and reinforce certain prejudices. I personally loathe the use of the word 'chav', seeing it as socially acceptable cover for attacking the working class, no matter what spurious links are made with Burberry, in the same way that 'that's so gay' has become an acceptable form of (unintentional generally) homophobia. Students tend to disagree! See what you make of the following, which gets fairly hard hitting at times, including the use of some strong language:<br />
<br />
<div id="article-header"><div id="main-article-info"><b style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;"><br />
Debating the word 'chav' is irrelevant to the working-class experience</span></b><br />
<div class="stand-first-alone" id="stand-first">Extending choice for the poorest will achieve more than defining who they are</div></div><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Suzanne Moore 4.6.11 </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/04/suzanne-moore-chavs-working-class" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/04/suzanne-moore-chavs-working-class</a> </div><a class="contributor" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/suzannemoore"></a><br />
<div id="content"><br />
<ul class="article-attributes"><div data-global-auto-refresh-switch="on" id="article-wrapper"><div id="main-content-picture"><img alt="CATHERINE TATE XMAS SPECIAL" height="276" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/6/3/1307122451306/CATHERINE-TATE-XMAS-SPECI-007.jpg" width="460" />
<div class="caption">Chavdom is just a smash-and-grab on the "values" on offer. It’s a response to the rich slagging off the poor for being poor'. Photograph: BBC/Tiger Aspect</div></div><div id="article-body-blocks"><span style="font-size: small;">Cast your minds back to Tony Blair's great triumph of 2007. He appeared in a sketch for Comic Relief with Catherine Tate, who was playing the stroppy Lauren Cooper. She takes tea in to Blair and starts babbling about Center Parcs and Nike Town. Exasperated, the then prime minister came back with: "Am I bovvered?"</span> <span style="font-size: small;">What a guy! He could act? Who knew? If only Gordon Brown had been able to do a turn in Gavin & Stacey, maybe things would have been different. Anyway, part of Lauren's diatribe was actually about chavs a</span>
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-size: small;">nd pikeys. Her accent is heavy patois. This is now the London accent. The fact is our "racist" white working class sound mostly black.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">I remember no great outcry about chavs then. We laughed at her and Vicky Pollard. Murmurs about Little Britain's white, privately educated men making fun of young working-class women and blacking up started to make things a bit uncomfortable. But not as uncomfortable as the average city bus ride. There are always arguments on buses, people muttering to themselves, chicken boxes thrown, gangs of kids irritating those desperately trying to read Ian McEwan.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">You are either on the bus or off the bus. Or, if possible, in a taxi … but on the bus I do hear the word "chav" often thrown around by those who would be seen this way by others.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">Owen Jones's new book, Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, is really much more about class, and is a blinding read. I like much of what he says, but don't share his faith in the Labour party. Nor the culture of offence that springs up around "banned" words.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">I say banned words because Meral Hussein-Ece got in a bit of bother after tweeting about being stuck in "chav land". She is a baroness and a Lib Dem, and she should know better. She was describing aggressive behaviour, and I defended her because I don't really know her as a peer or Lib Dem but as a Turkish Cypriot councillor where I live, who spent years filling in benefit forms and setting up refuges for women. Has she done a lot for working-class people? Yes. Is she now getting vile racist abuse? Yes, such as: "We would love to see you striped (sic) of your British passport and sent back to the third world dump you came from."</span> <span style="font-size: small;">Here, the end point of identity politics looms into view. I am working-class made good. (Or bad? I told the Labour boys attacking her that I didn't give a flying fuck for their sanctimony. But I am not a baroness. Any day now, surely?) Our kids went to schools not good enough for our MP, the first black woman to get into parliament. Here, at what academics call the interstices of race and class, and others would call a huge mess, a clearer understanding of the class politics that Jones calls for would indeed help.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">But is this uptightness about chavs really new and heartfelt? Isn't it all really simply a question of definition?</span> <span style="font-size: small;">Julie Burchill talked about chavs in 2005, but because she is a maverick her arguments went unheard. Michael Collins wrote The Likes of Us: A Biography of the White Working Class in 2004. He had a go at me in it, as I have described the killers of Stephen Lawrence as "white trash". I stand by that absolutely. In fact, one of my all-time heroes, Roseanne Barr, once described herself as America's greatest nightmare – "white trash with money" – and much of what Jones describes – the turning of the lower orders into subhumans – is not confined to the UK. Jeremy Kyle's moralising to dispossessed, DNA-tested losers is merely a formula where this bizarre bullying constitutes entertainment but is also the only time you see working-class people on TV.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">But then culture always moves faster than political discourse, and as this discourse has been about the feral, feckless workless for so long, it now works in tandem with it. The old respectable working class with their work ethic and "community spirit" has been hammered out of existence. The jobs they do make them identify as middle class. Those who won't take those jobs are skivers. The new low-pay, part-time jobs in the barns of call centres and retail are not unionised. The last civil war – the miners' strike – put paid to that. I can't share all the nostalgia for some of these old ways of life. The claustrophobia of "community" and "family" for some of us felt like the "learned incuriosity" that Lynsey Hanley talks of about life on council estates.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">How do we recognise class, then? And how do we redefine aspiration as something other than individual? Weirdly, the economy may force back the Tory ideology on home-owning as younger generations will never be able to buy. If home-owning is the ultimate route to belonging, we are going to have a lot of people who will never belong.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">We can maybe see where the right is going. David Brooks's The Social Animal has been embraced by politicians precisely because of its inherently conservative conclusions about "character". Brooks trots through the neuroscience and sociobiology to explain how we are governed by more than reason. As usual, all the radical implications of Freud are stripped away. Instead, we learn that what makes us achieve in life is not IQ, but impulse control. Self-restraint. Where best do we learn that? In stable middle-class families. A culture of instant gratification is learned in disorganised families. Poor people. Single mums. The usual. In other words, social policy has to start with this. Giving actual money to poor people is a stupid idea. They suffer from moral poverty.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">This sense of a lack of self-restraint peaked in the gendered holy trinity of chavdom – Katie Price, Kerry Katona and Jade Goody. The right fear out-of-control women. Always. If we understand anything at all about the political unconscious, then the chav phenomenon is the rampant id. I want it all here. Right here, right now.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">I understand the feeling, sure. When listening to James Delingpole "arguing" with Jones on the radio, my main thought was that if this kind of mind is what the best schools produced, the money would have been better off spent on crack and crisps. But to watch the middle class argue over whether the word chav is as derogatory as Paki or nigger is ludicrous.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">Chavdom is just a smash-and-grab on the "values" on offer. It is a response to the rich slagging off the poor for being poor. It's a sideshow. If you really want to embrace this class solidarity, go for it – and Jones is passionate about this. But I don't see a collectivity forming around this one. I have no need to embrace my inner chav. I already deep fried it. And I hate shopping. Call me a traitor to my class.</span> <span style="font-size: small;">The C-word is not chav but class, and another word will spring up to replace it. It always has. False empathy is just another kind of false consciousness. What values are being defended here, and by who? While we argue about which words are the right ones, we do the job of the right. The answer is to neither demonise nor celebrate aspects of working-class life, but to extend choice in every way. Culturally and politically. By any means necessary.</span> </div></div></ul></div>DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-6310807874585279322011-06-12T02:01:00.000-07:002011-06-12T04:15:16.792-07:00Roseanne on class prejudice of TVI'll cross-post this on several blogs as it touches on gender, regulation, class prejudice and the general financial machinations of the entertainment business. Assuming you're unaware of what 'Roseanne' is, a few clicks on wikipedia or youtube will swiftly bring you up to speed - it was a hugely successful US sitcome with the USP of centring on a working-class family (with money problems and lousy jobs, not the usual facsimille of working class, or 'labour as Roseanne Barr refers to it, with a tough domestically inept/disinterested woman at the head of the family).<br />
There are very, very few comparisons - aspects of Taxi perhaps, maybe even Married With Children.<br />
Her article, and forthcoming book, reveal just how unprepared the US TV network (whose working practices, being fundamentally driven by financial calculations and audience testing, are not so different to those of the film biz) was to let an unvarnished depiction of working class folk go on, let alone allow a female creative lead the way. Roseanne Barr found that her own creation was credited to an entirely uninvolved male producer, who went on to make her life hell.<br />
There may be a 'PC' moral behind this, but it is a fascinating read from a very un-PC lady.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div id="article-header"><div id="main-article-info"><b style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
Roseanne Barr: 'Fame's a bitch. It's hard to handle and drives you nuts'</span></b><br />
<div class="stand-first-alone" id="stand-first" style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">With a hit TV show, Roseanne Barr could get the best tables in the best restaurants. Never mind about the empty flattery, the nervous breakdowns and the feeling of being used for 10 years. But she's not bitter. Honest</div></div></div><div id="content">Roseanne Barr 11.6.11 <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jun/11/roseanne-barr-on-fame">http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/jun/11/roseanne-barr-on-fame</a><br />
<ul class="article-attributes"><div data-global-auto-refresh-switch="on" id="article-wrapper"><div id="main-content-picture"><img alt="Roseanne Barr" height="560" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/6/7/1307441937681/Roseanne-Barr-008.jpg" width="460" />
<div class="caption">'I walked into the producer's office, held up a pair of wardrobe scissors to show her I meant business - "This is no character! This is my show. You watch me. I will win this battle." ' Photograph: Robert Maxwell/Art + Commerce</div></div><div id="article-body-blocks">During the recent and overly publicised breakdown of Charlie Sheen, I was repeatedly contacted by the media and asked to comment, as it was assumed that I know a thing or two about starring on a sitcom, fighting with producers, nasty divorces, public meltdowns and bombing through a live comedy tour. I have, however, never smoked crack or taken too many drugs, unless you count alcohol as a drug (I don't). But I do know what it's like to be seized by bipolar thoughts that make one spout wise about tiger blood and brag about winning when one is actually losing
<a name='more'></a>. It's hard to tell whether one is winning or, in fact, losing once one starts to think of oneself as a commodity, or a product, or a character, or a voice for the downtrodden. It's called losing perspective. Fame's a bitch. It's hard to handle and drives you nuts. Yes, it's true that your sense of entitlement grows exponentially with every perk until it becomes too stupendous a weight to walk around under, but it's a cut-throat business, show, and without the perks, plain ol' fame and fortune just ain't worth the trouble. "Winning" in Hollywood means not just power, money and complimentary smoked-salmon pizza, but also that everyone around you fails just as you are peaking. When you become No 1, you might begin to believe, as Cher once said in an interview, that you are "one of God's favourite children", one of the few who made it through the gauntlet and survived. The idea that your ego is not ego at all but submission to the will of the Lord starts to dawn on you as you recognise that only by God's grace did you make it through the raging attack of idea pirates and woman haters, to ascend to the top of Bigshit Showbiz Mountain. All of that sounds very much like the diagnosis for bipolar disorder, which more and more stars are claiming to have these days. I have it, as well as several other mental illnesses, but then, I've always been a trendsetter, even though I'm seldom credited with those kinds of things. And I was not crazy before I created, wrote and starred in television's first feminist and working-class-family sitcom (also its last). After<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atz34Kb-o5g" title=""> my 1985 appearance </a>on The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, I was wooed by producers in Hollywood, who told me they wanted to turn my act into a sitcom. When Marcy Carsey – who co-owned <a href="http://www.carseywerner.com/cw_history.html" title="">Carsey-Werner </a>with her production partner, Tom Werner (producers of The Cosby Show) – asked me to sign, I was impressed. I considered <a href="http://www.carseywerner.com/cosbyshow.html" title="">The Cosby Show</a> to be some of the greatest and most revolutionary TV ever. Marcy presented herself as a sister in arms. I was a cutting-edge comic, and she said she got that I wanted to do a realistic show about a strong mother who was not a victim of Patriarchal Consumerist Bullshit – in other words, the persona I had carefully crafted over the eight previous years in dive clubs and biker bars: a fierce working-class domestic goddess. It was 1987, and it seemed people were primed and ready to watch a sitcom that didn't have anything like the rosy glow of middle-class confidence and comfort, and didn't try to fake it. ABC seemed to agree. They picked up Roseanne in 1988. It didn't take long for me to get a taste of the staggering sexism and class bigotry that would make the first season of <a href="http://www.carseywerner.com/roseanne.html" title="">Roseanne</a> god-awful. It was at the premiere party when I learned that my stories and ideas – and the ideas of my sister and my first husband, Bill – had been stolen. The pilot was screened, and I saw the opening credits for the first time, which included this: "Created by Matt Williams". I was devastated and felt so betrayed that I stood up and left the party. Not one person noticed. I confronted Marcy when we were shooting the next episode. I asked how I could continue working for a woman who had let a man take credit for my work – who wouldn't even share credit with me – after talking to me about sisterhood and all that bullshit. She started crying and said, "I guess I'm going to have to tell Brandon [Stoddard, then president of ABC Entertainment] that I can't deliver this show." I said, "Cry all you want to, but you figure out a way to put my name on the show I created, or kiss my ass goodbye." I went to complain to Brandon, thinking he could set things straight, as having a robbed star might be counterproductive to his network. He told me, "You were over 21 when you signed that contract." He looked at me as if I were an arrogant waitress run amok. I went to my agent and asked why he never told me that I would not be getting the "created by" credit. He half-heartedly admitted that he had "a lot going on at the time" and was "sorry". I also learned that it was too late to lodge a complaint with the Writers' Guild. It was pretty clear that no one except me really cared about the show, and that Matt and Marcy and ABC had nothing but contempt for me – someone who didn't show deference, didn't keep her mouth shut, didn't do what she was told. Marcy acted as if I were anti-feminist by resisting her attempt to steal my whole life out from under me. I made the mistake of thinking Marcy was a powerful woman in her own right. I've come to learn that there are none in TV. There aren't powerful men, for that matter, either – unless they work for an ad company or a market-study group. Those are the people who decide what gets on the air and what doesn't. Complaining about the "created by" credit made an enemy of Matt. He wasted no time undermining me, going so far as to ask my co-star, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000422/" title="">John Goodman</a>, who played Roseanne Conner's husband, Dan, if he would do the show without me. (Goodman said no.) It was then that I had my first nervous breakdown. To survive the truly hostile environment on set, I started to pray nonstop to my God, as working-class women often do, and to listen nonstop to Patti Smith's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8C9U7pMvmc" title="">People Have The Power</a>. I read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War" title="">The Art Of War</a>, and kept the idea "He that cares the most, wins" upmost in my mind. I knew I cared the most, since I had the most to lose. I made a chart of names and hung them on my dressing-room door; it listed every person who worked on the show, and I put a check next to those I intended to fire when Roseanne became No 1, which I knew it would. My breakdown deepened around the fourth episode, when I confronted the wardrobe master about the outfits that made me look like a show pony rather than a working-class mom. I wanted vintage plaid shirts, T-shirts and jeans, not purple stretch pants with green-and-blue smocks. She bought everything but what I requested, so I wore my own clothes to work, thinking she was just absent-minded. I was still clueless about the extent of the subterfuge. Eventually she told me that she had been told by one of Matt's producers "not to listen to what Roseanne wants to wear". This producer was a woman, a type with which I became acquainted at the beginning of my standup career in Denver. I cared little for them: blondes in high heels who were so anxious to reach the professional level of the men they worshipped, fawned over, served, built up, and flattered that they would stab other women in the back. They are the ultimate weapon used by men against actual feminists who try to work in media, and they are never friends to other women, you can trust me on that. I grabbed a pair of wardrobe scissors and ran up to the big house to confront the producer. (The "big house" was what I called the writers' building. I rarely went there, since it was disgusting. Within minutes, one of the writers would crack a stinky-pussy joke that would make me want to murder them. Male writers have zero interest in being nice to women, including their own assistants, few of whom are ever promoted to the rank of "writer", even though they do all the work while the guys sit on their asses taking the credit.) I walked into this woman's office, held the scissors up to show her I meant business, and said, "Bitch, do you want me to cut you?" We stood there for a second or two, just so I could make sure she was receptive to my POV. I asked why she had told the wardrobe master not to listen to me, and she said, "Because we do not like the way you choose to portray this character." I said, "This is no fucking character! This is my show, and I created it – not Matt, and not Carsey-Werner, and not ABC. You watch me. I will win this battle if I have to kill every last white bitch in high heels around here." The next battle came when Matt sent down a line for me that I found incredibly insulting – not just to myself but to John, who I was in love with, secretly. The line was a ridiculously sexist interpretation of what a feminist thinks – something to the effect of "You're my equal in bed, but that's it." I could not say it convincingly enough for Matt, and his hand-picked director walked over and gave me a note in front of the entire crew: "Say it like you mean it ... That is a direct note from Matt." What followed went something like this: my lovely acting coach, Roxanne Rogers (a sister of Sam Shepard), piped up and said, "Never give an actor a note in front of the crew. Take her aside and give her the note privately – that is what good directors do." She made sure to say this in front of the entire crew. Then she suggested that I request a line change. So I did. Matt, who was watching from his office, yelled over the loudspeaker, "Say the line as written!" I said, "No, I don't like the line. I find it repulsive, and my character would not say it." Matt said, "Yes, she would say it. She's hot to trot and to get her husband in bed with her, and give it to her like she wants it." I replied that this was not what she would say or do: "It's a castrating line that only an idiot would think to write for a real live woman who loves her husband, you cocksucker." ABC's lawyers were called in. They stood around the bed while the cameras filmed me saying, very politely, over and over, "Line change, please." After four hours of this, I called my then lawyer, Barry Hirsch, and demanded to be let out of my contract. I couldn't take it any longer – the abuse, humiliation, theft and lack of respect for my work, my health, my life. He explained that he had let it go on for hours on purpose and that I had finally won. He had sent a letter to the network and Carsey-Werner that said, "Matt wasted money that he could have saved with a simple line change. He cost you four hours in production budget." That turned the tide in my favour. Barry told me Matt would be gone after the 13th episode. Which didn't stop him from making my life hell until then. Some days, I'd just stand in the set's kitchen weeping loudly. The crew would surround me and encourage me to continue. CJ, one of my favourite cameramen – an African-American married to a white woman – would say, "Come on, Rosie, I need this job. I have five kids, and two of them are white!" I was constantly thinking about my own kids being able to go to college, and I wrote jokes like a machine – jokes that I insisted be included in the scripts (lots of times, the writers would tell me that the pages got lost). Another head writer was brought in, and at first he actually tried to listen to what I wanted to do. But within a few shows I realised he wasn't much more of a team player than Matt. He brought his own writers with him, all male, all old. Most had probably never worked with a woman who did not serve them coffee. It must have been a shock to their system to find me in a position to disapprove their jokes. <span class="inline wide"> <img alt="Roseanne show" height="276" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/About/General/2011/6/7/1307442384906/Roseanne-show-007.jpg" width="460" /> <span class="caption" style="width: 460px;"> 'I wanted to do a realistic show about a strong mother who was not a victim of Patriarchal Consumerist Bullshit.' The show's stars, from left, George Clooney, John Goodman, Roseanne and Laurie Metcalf. Photograph: ABC/Getty </span> </span> When the show went to No 1 in December 1988, ABC sent a chocolate "1" to congratulate me. Guess they figured that would keep the fat lady happy – or maybe they thought I hadn't heard (along with the world) that male stars with No 1 shows were given Bentleys and Porsches. So me and George Clooney [who played Roseanne Conner's boss for the first season] took my chocolate prize outside, where I snapped a picture of him hitting it with a baseball bat. I sent that to ABC. Not long after that, I cleaned house. Honestly, I enjoyed firing the people I'd checked on the back of my dressing-room door. The writers packed their bags and went to join Matt on Tim Allen's new show, Home Improvement, so none of them suffered. Tim didn't get credit, either. But at least everyone began to credit <i>me</i>. I was assumed to be a genius and eccentric, instead of a crazy bitch, and for a while it felt pretty nice. I hired comics I had worked with in clubs, rather than script writers. I promoted several of the female assistants – who had done all the work of assembling the scripts anyway – to full writers. (I did that for one or two members of my crew as well.) I gave <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joss_Whedon" title="">Joss Whedon</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judd_Apatow" title="">Judd Apatow</a> their first writing jobs, as well as many other untried writers who went on to great success. The end of my addiction to fame happened at the exact moment Roseanne dropped out of the top 10, in the seventh of our nine seasons. It was mysteriously instantaneous! I clearly remember that blackest of days, when I had my office call the Palm restaurant for reservations on a Saturday night, at the last second as per usual. My assistant, Hilary, who is still working for me, said – while clutching the phone to her chest with a look of horror, a look I can recall now as though it were only yesterday: "The Palm said they are full!" Knowing what that really meant sent me over the edge. It was a gut shot with a buckshot-loaded pellet gun. I made Hil call the Palm back, disguise her voice, and say she was calling from the offices of Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. Instantly, Hil was given the big 10-4 by the Palm management team. I became enraged, and though she was uncomfortable doing it (Hil is a professional woman), I forced her to call back at 7.55pm and cancel the 8pm reservation, saying that Roseanne – who had joined Tom and Nicole's party of seven – had persuaded them to join her at Denny's on Sunset Boulevard. The feeling of being used all those years just because I was in the top 10 – not for my money or even my gluttony – was sobering indeed. I vowed that I would make a complete change top to bottom and rid myself of the desires that had laid me low. (I also stopped eating meat for a year, out of bitterness and mourning for the Palm's bone-in rib-eye steaks.) As inevitably happens to all stars, I could not look myself in the mirror for one more second. My dependence on empty flattery, without which I feared I would evaporate, masked a deeper addiction to the bizarro world of fame. I finally found the right lawyer to tell me what scares TV producers worse than anything – too late for me. What scares these guys – who think that the perks of success include humiliating and destroying the star they work for – isn't getting caught stealing or being made to pay for that; it's being charged with fostering a "hostile work environment". If I could do it all over, I'd sue ABC and Carsey-Werner under those provisions. Hollywood hates labour, and hates shows about labour worse than any other thing. And that's why you won't be seeing another Roseanne anytime soon. Instead, all over the tube, you will find enterprising, overmedicated, painted-up, capitalist whores claiming to be housewives. But I'm not bitter. Nothing real or truthful makes its way to TV unless you are smart and know how to sneak it in, and I would tell you how I did it, but then I would have to kill you. Based on <a href="http://www.cbs.com/primetime/two_and_a_half_men/" title="">Two And A Half Men</a>'s success, it seems viewers now prefer their comedy dumb and sexist. Charlie Sheen was the world's most famous john, and a sitcom was written around him. That just says it all. Doing tons of drugs, smacking prostitutes around, holding a knife up to the head of your wife – sure, that sounds like a dream come true for so many guys out there, but that doesn't make it right. People do what they can get away with (or figure they can), and Sheen is, in fact, a product of what we call politely the "culture". Where I can relate to the Charlie stuff is his undisguised contempt for certain people in his work environment and his unwillingness to play a role that's expected of him on his own time. But, again, I'm not bitter. I'm really not. The fact that my fans have thanked and encouraged me for doing what I used to get in trouble for doing (shooting my big mouth off) has been very healing. And, somewhere along the way, I realised that TV and our culture had changed because of a woman named Roseanne Conner, for whom I am honoured to have written jokes. • <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/roseanne-barr" title="More from guardian.co.uk on Roseanne Barr">Roseanne Barr</a> now lives in Hawaii, where she farms macadamia nuts. She has a new book, Roseannearchy (Gallery, £17.99), and will return to TV in <a href="http://www.roseanneworld.com/blog/2011/02/coming-back-to-tv-with-roseann.php" title="">Roseanne's Nuts</a>, a Lifetime reality show. </div></div></ul></div>DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8967427251552781616.post-75044554333118177742010-05-10T07:23:00.001-07:002010-05-10T07:23:45.767-07:00Useful ResourcesSee various articles at <a href="http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-role.htm">http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-role.htm</a>DBhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01644270972807155523noreply@blogger.com0