Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Fish Tank Case Study






Fish Tank

Fish Tank is a British drama about a marginalised young woman, Mia, on the verge of sexual and social expression. Throughout the film she attempts to forge a relationship with her mother’s boyfriend and find a ‘way out’ of her life on a council estate, where she has been excluded from school and seems distanced from her peers.
It arrived at the BBFC with a strong critical reception following a place in competition at Cannes.
The filmmakers did not request a specific category when submitting it but examiners who viewed it felt there was a strong argument for allowing the work to be seen by 15 – 18 year olds. That said it had several classification issues which took it to the borderline of ‘15’ and ‘18’ and required further discussion and consideration.
The key classification issues are very strong language, sex, sex references, recreational drug use, discriminatory terms, possible animal cruelty, and moderate violence.
The strongest issue in classification terms is the five uses of very strong language, within the opening 10 minutes. One is used when Mia speaks to her friend's Dad who is rude; at the end of the slightly hostile conversation she asks him to give her friend a message 'tell her that I think her old man's a cunt'Soon after the still ‘stroppy’ Mia meets some peers doing sexy dancing in the grounds of their tower block. A verbal exchange ensues along with some physical scuffling, including one head butt. During the shouting match there are two uses of cunt although neither is particularly clear.
Even later that day Mia has an argument with her mother who is angry with her and grabs her. During the exchange her mother says: 'I won't fucking let go you little cunt'. This is a particularly strong as it is directed and used to a female character (both often ‘18’ indicators). However it is important in establishing the strained and aggressive relationship between Mia and her Mother. The last clear use is an argument between Mia and her  foul mouthed little sister who, on being called a 'fuck face', shouts - 'If I'm a fuck face you are a cunt face'. Though it is used by a young child, much of the potential offence in the last use is lessened as the exchange is comic and the child, who swears a lot, is playing with offensive words rather than using them in a truly aggressive or sexual way.
At ‘15’ the BBFC Guidelines say: The strongest terms (for example, ‘cunt’) may be acceptable if justified by the context. Aggressive or repeated use of the strongest language is unlikely to be acceptable.
Though some of the uses are shouted they lack the aggravating factors found in ‘18’ works such asThis Is England or Veronica Guerin where repeated uses of ‘cunt’ were combined with strong aggression, violence and an emphasis on power imbalance. The strongest clear use is Mia's Mother's use which does stand out but justified given its very clear demonstration of all the strains on their relationship (sexual competition, social embarrassment, pent up anger, need for recognition etc). The uses in the fight between the girls lose impact as they aren't particularly clear.
The strongest sex scene occurs between Connor and Mia's Mother - we see some breast nudity, thighs and writhing and thrusting with lots of accompanying groaning, gasping and moaning. The scene is shot from Mia's perspective and it appears the actor is in the shot. Later Mia and Connor have sex, although there is some movement there is limited nudity and the scene is darkly lit.
This was an important consideration, as the actress is playing a character of 15 and was aged 15/16 at time of filming, making her legally a child. When a child performer is involved in a sex scene in a film either taking part, as Mia does in the sex scene later, or watching, the BBFC must ensure that there is no likely offence being committed under the terms of the Protection of Children Act. Here several factors were taken into account; firstly, that the actress was close to the English age of consent of 16 years old (legal advice suggests a sliding scale of concern with stronger concern over very young performers and less concern about performers close to adulthood). Secondly, the examiners had to explore whether the scenes were lewd or contained real or explicit detail. The scene involving the performer having sex has no explicit detail and is not particularly lewd. There is no nudity and it is shown as a key catalyst for the plot. Her sexual awakening at the hands of the manipulative and irresponsible Connor informs her character development for the rest of the film. The scene witnessed by Mia includes some nudity but again, is a fairly standard film love scene without the detail or tonal qualities which would make it appear pornographic.
There are some throwaway, crude (expletive heavy) sex references but these are partly used by Mia to pretend she is having sex with her new boyfriend and as throwaway references to sex. They aren't pornographic or focussed on in the way they are in either high end gross out sex comedies (eg The Inbetweeners) or films with a focus on pornography. Given that they are used to reflect time and place and to draw some compelling characters within a clear realistic context, they can be accommodated at ‘15’ where BBFC Guidelines note 'There may be strong verbal references to sexual behaviour, but the strongest references are unlikely to be acceptable unless justified by context'.
Mia's hopes of becoming a dancer result in some sultry dancing and practice and an audition scene, where she arrives at a large tacky adult club and watches the girl before her writhe (clothed in underwear). Stronger strip club scenes have been passed at '15' and there are no details which are particularly erotic here – the strong sense of the scene is that it would be terrible if Mia actually stripped in such an environment.
Mia and her boyfriend drink what appears to be cough mixture to get high, and are seen acting a little drink and exuberant after stealing a piece of a Volvo from a scrap yard. There is no indication what the medicine is and there is no particular emphasis on drug taking - both are more keen to get money to buy alcohol. Mia, who is under age, is seen drinking a lot too. This isn’t glamorised and she is usually seen drinking cheap canned alcohol and often alone. Her drinking is shown as a reflection of the influence of her drinking mother and something she does to alleviate boredom and have fun as she roams aimlessly, no longer in school, waiting for a referral unit, lacking friends and confidantes. There are also several scenes of adults, teens and children smoking, including Mia's much younger little sister and her friend, who share a cigarette whilst watching TV when they've been banished upstairs because their Mum is having a party. The film has no natural appeal to very young children, and though the sight of children smoking is quite shocking, it isn’t being promoted to viewers.
The film also contains some discriminatory terms including pikey, retard, and spastic. They are used in an implicitly derogatory way, to describe some travellers Mia is friends with and the likely inhabitants of her new school. Discriminatory behaviour isn’t specifically condoned.
Fish Tank contains a scene in which, after 'tickling' a fish to the surface, Connor kills it. There are two clear shots of the fish 'breathing' on the surface but both are short. Connor picks up the fish (still moving) and then shoves a stick through its mouth to kill it. Though the scenes are quick it seemed likely on screen that the fish was already dead and that no animals were harmed.
In terms of moderate violence and threat, possibly the strongest scene is when Mia is caught trying to free a chained horse from a traveller site. She struggles and the men hold her. She is clothed but there is a sense of slight sexual menace as she is manhandled and her chest is touched. The scene is brief and handled with discretion and important to the plot. The other violence, though low key, has a veneer of truth in its scuffles and hair pulling and sense of lashing out. The strongest bloody moment is a head butt as some teenage girls argue - the victim (a nasty peer of Mia's) is later seen with a black eye. The head butt isn't glamorised and the violence isn't strong enough to challenge the '15'. There is very minor blood when Mia cuts her foot, a wound we see a few times as Connor dresses it.
When Mia attempts to kidnap Connor's child, possibly as a punishment, the scene, while low key, is tense. It is made worse by the suggestion that Mia has no real plan of action, so the act could be entirely pointless or end in disaster. The little girl is scared and it is quite alarming to watch her coerced and shouted at by Mia who is increasingly frustrated. There is a positive resolution to the scene though and ‘moderate threat’ is permissible at ‘12A’ and certainly containable at ’15’.
When a work contains several issues, some of which put the work on the borderline between two categories, the context is very important, whether that is the context of the individual issues (ie how a word is said, or what a fight is about) but also the broader context of how people are likely to watch a film, how the film might make them feel and any artistic or other special merits of the work. There are bleak moments in this exploration of a young woman’s development and it is set in a realistic contemporary environment. However, though some of the work is down beat there is a clear moral perspective presented to the viewer, with Mia’s capacity to learn from her situation and grow seen throughout. It was also strongly felt that a 15 year old audience (and a '15' audience) would be well able to move beyond the grim or momentarily offensive or shocking moments of the film and perhaps appreciate its authenticity, depth and intelligence.
Fish Tank was passed ‘15’ and seen by the BBFC’s Director and a panel of experts in child development and similar issues who concurred that though at the high end of the ‘15’ category the work was acceptable there.
Fish Tank was selected for National School Films Week in 2010.

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

Mclibel

The case of Helen Steel and David Morris against Mcdonalds

Deadlines for Advanced Porfolio

Research and Planning to be completed by - 27th February

Production piece to be completed and posted onto your blog by - 12th March

Evaluation to be completed and posted on your blog by - 26th March

Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Section A - Foundation and Advanced Portfolio

This piece of work needs to be completed by: 20th February. So you can either do this over the half term break or on Monday.

Produce a mind map for your foundation portfolio explaining how your production piece addresses the following key concepts:

Genre
Narrative
Representative
Audience
Media Language

Mind map examples:









Defamation

How does the issue of libel add to our debate about press regulation?

Definition
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and
vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is often, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false, and, or alternatively, that the publication is made to someone other than the person defamed.
Slander and Libel
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander 
(harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally. The
 fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel."
The debate whether Internet blogs or Bulletin Boards are publishers
 is a key subject being addressed, whereas an Internet based community is more akin to conversations in a bar or pub, with content being written as an ongoing dialoge which is generally not edited or regulated such as in the publishing industry.

Different scales of cases
In different places in the world you can be imprisoned for defamation against:
1.Individuals
2.Companies
3.The state
4.The sovereign
Is there a possible defence?
Allowable defences are justification (the truth of the 
statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest)
What libel case
 has this celeb
 been involved in?
Former Big Brother housemate Charley Uchea has won a libel action against newspaper The Daily Star.
The paper's publishers, Express Newspapers, have apologised over false claims in an article headed "£500-a-night Charley" in June 2007.
Her solicitor told the High Court in London that Express Newspapers now accepts that allegations made about the 23-year-old were completely untrue.
Sharon Osbourne wins libel battle
Sharon Osbourne has accepted libel damages from The Sun newspaper over a 2007 story which alleged she was driving husband Ozzy "to destruction".
The 56-year-old former X Factor judge accepted an apology and a substantial, undisclosed sum of money.
Her solicitor told the court that the allegations were "entirely without foundation" and "extremely distressing, hurtful and damaging".
The star was not at London's High Court for the settlement.
Solicitor John Kelly said the article, published in October 2007, claimed that Mrs Osbourne was "driving her frail husband Ozzy Osbourne to destruction" and was working him "so hard she will kill him".
Student wins Rhys libel damages
A newspaper has paid "substantial" damages to a student after it alleged she had called Rhys Jones' killer a hero during a TV interview.
Kelly Marshall, 18, from Liverpool, launched a libel claim after the Daily Star also wrongly accused her of being a member of the Croxteth Crew gang.
Her solicitor said the money would go to the Rhys Jones Memorial Trust.
Mercer was jailed for life for shooting Rhys in August 2007 as the 11-year-old walked home from football practice.
The 18-year-old was sentenced on 16 December, and two days later, the Daily Star published a front page story claiming Miss Marshall was Mercer's girlfriend and she had hailed him a hero.
The paper, owned by Express Newspapers, also alleged she had declared a pledge of loyalty to the Croxteth Crew gang, of which Mercer was a leading member.
Research the following:
The McLibel Pair
Article 19.org
Analyse your case studies...
Who was sueing who?
What were the libelous comments?
What was the outcome of the case?
Does this case study present a pro or a con for our libel laws?
BCA V Simon Singh
Who was sueing who?
BCA V Simon Singh
What were the libelous comments?
Using treatments on children that were not fully tested, “Bogus treatments.”
What was the outcome of the case?
Case dropped by BCA
Does this case study present a pro or a con for our libel laws?
 Simon lost a lot of money and time for nothing
Ambiguity whether fact or opinion
Steel and Morris V McDonalds
Who was sueing who?
A couple V McDonalds chain
What were the libelous comments?
Exploited children with advertising, misleading advertising, cruelty to animals, low wages
What was the outcome of the case?
Failed to prove some of the points so ordered to pay £60,000 (but didn’t in the end due to unfair trial)
Does this case study present a pro or a con for our libel laws?
“Oppressive and unfair” “breached their right to freedom of expression” Unfair trial
Elton John V the guardian
Who was suing who?
Elton John V the guardian
What were the libelous comments?
More money spent on fundraiser party than the charity
What was the outcome of the case?
Was part of joke diary so dismissed
Does this case study present a pro or a con for our libel laws?
How does the issue of libel add to our debate about press regulation?

Monday, 6 February 2012

Libel Cases: Elton John and Simon Singh

In a long overdue victory for free speech, Sir Elton John has been left fuming yet again after loosing his latest libel case against the Guardian newspaper.
This is a mighty blow to the ongoing efforts of one of Britain’s top gay mafia henchmen to seal the lips of all those who question his beloved charity, a battle in which has no doubt cost the “gratuitously offensive, nasty and snide” showman dearly. Journalist Marina Hyde claimed Elton’s AIDS Foundation does not “raise serious funds” and is merely an excuse for “self-promotion”. This is the third time the charity has come in for criticism in a national newspaper.
During the 1990′s, gay mafia charity “Stonewall” often flirted with Sir Elton, flying the entertainer and his entourage across the Atlantic from his L.A home. In November 1999, the organisers of it’s glamorous gala fundraiser at London’s Royal Albert Hall faced a legal challenge from the Scout Movement,  enraged by Elton’s use of erotic dancers as part of his performance for the sold-out event who (although aged over 18.) were dressed up as Cub-Scouts alongside Elton (who’s real name is Reginald Kenneth Dwight). Several right-wing gay-bashing homophobic family-rights groups got on their moral high-horses and claimed “Stonewall should be condemned for holding boys up as sex objects” causing similar claims to be published in The Sun and other tabloid newspapers. Stonewall itself had to make a full public apologywhilst Elton stayed silent.
At the time Stonewall was lobbying to equalise the age of consent, and although it may seem like a long time ago now, it was still a very tough battle to fight. Public support was critical, lack of it contributed to several delays to the campaign along with the repeal of Section 28. Elton’s involvement probably didn’t help.
Since then Elton’s work with Stonewall has dwindled and his reputation for making brash personal attacks on other gay icons and celebrities with big gay followings such as Madonna and George Michael certainly no longer makes him a favorable act to headline at a glitzy money-making ball these days.  In fact Elton’s now got his own charity,  naughtily after himself.  Just as the name “Stonewall” itself has slowly begun to drown out, Elton’s charity along with a rather convenient plug for his entire career, the Elton John AIDS Foundation is a name you probably will have heard more and more over the past few years. Combined with the 61 year old’s tendency to mouth-off and throw a queeny-strop at the slightest snippet of criticism or unflattering photo taken of his baldy noggin, the charity itself has given him even more opportunities to indulge in his favorite pastime – suing some ass.
Those who believe in the existence of parallel universes will probably envisage Sir Elton pursing a career in Law. At least in this one he’s got all the right wigs for the part!
Who Elton’s thrown his dummy at:
Elton’s petty legal fights have now whisked the Rocket Man into cyberspace, and although he’s a self-confessed Luddite and technopbobe he’s known to indulge in a bit of silver surfing.
One of his more mean pursuits involved sending the Lawyers down to the webmistress of entertainment “gossip message board” – Countess Joulebine. He managed to secure a hearing by citing precedent set in similar case (Godfrey v. Demon Internet Limited 1999) which involved the former owners of the Pink Paper and Boyz Magazine David Bridle and Kelvin Sollis. The case involved material published by Chris Morris, a former Stonewall activist who had switched sides to grass routes gay rights group “OutRage!” headed by Peter Tatchell who was about to publish details of an apparently “fake” HIV charity “Positive Lives” (now defunct) on his website hosted by Demon Internet.
It appears Elton’s lawyers had in-depth knowledge about this particular case involving the owners of this other allegedly “dodgy HIV charity” which went to court only a year previously,  putting the Pink Paper’s main rival publication “OutCast” right out of business.
David Bridle still publishes Boyz Magazine, and having recently done away with it’s previous editor he is firmly back at the reigns. The Pink Paper was sold to rival publishers Millivres Prowler Group in 2004.
Any brave soul (like Chris Morris, Marina Hyde, Countess Joulebine and a long list of others) who dares question the apparent charitable operations of any gay mafia entities face being silenced by a wall of law suits, funded by gay mafia barons with rich friends and a long list of Lawyers, Publicists and Spin-Doctors armed with everything they need to cover up the most heinous of scandals.
Final Facts
  • In 2007 Sir Elton caused yet more fury after announcing he intends to Shut Down the Internet altogether claiming the web is “destroying music” and “stopping people going out”. Who knows what his real agenda is?
  • In an obvious blitz of damage limitation, less than two weeks after Elton went red in the face after loosing this latest battle with the Guardian, Harrow Council announced it was considering naming a street after him However it appears there is already a lovely little street right beside the Bus Station that is infact called “Elton Avenue”!
  • Like most secretive criminal societies, the “gay mafia” has friends in high places, but not all. Even within it’s own close-knit circles there is in-fighting and fierce rivalry, as well as family-like births, deaths, and civil partnerships! We’ll be going more in-depth on who’s who in our forthcoming features “Gay Mafia Families” and “The Gays After Tomorrow”.


Simon Singh

The British Chiropractic Association dropped its libel action against the science writer Simon Singh today, filing a notice of discontinuation in the high court.
The case had become a cause celebre, with scientists, celebrities and freedom of speech campaigners lining up to condemn the British libel laws and argue that Singh had a right to express his opinion in print.
The sudden end to the case will strengthen the campaign for reform of the libel laws, which Jack Straw, the justice secretary, is considering. It is also a specific pledge in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
Singh was sued by the BCA for a piece he wrote in the Guardian's comment pages, criticising the association for defending chiropractors who use treatments for which there is little evidence on children with conditions such as colic and asthma.
Singh and his supporters were dismayed by an early verdict by Mr Justice Eady on the meaning of the words used in the article. The judge ruled that Singh was stating facts, which he would have to prove in his defence, rather than voicing opinion and that he had implied the members of the BCA knowingly promoted what Singh called "bogus treatments".
Singh argued that was not what he meant and went to the court of appeal. Two weeks ago, he won the point.
In their ruling on the case, Lord Justice Judge, Lord Justice Neuberger and Lord Justice Sedley: "It is now nearly two years since the publication of the offending article. It seems unlikely that anyone would dare repeat the opinions expressed by Dr Singh for fear of a writ.
"Accordingly this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic."
Robert Dougans of Bryan Cave LLP, who represented Singh, confirmed that the BCA's case was at an end. "All that now remains to be settled is how much of Simon's legal costs he can recover from the BCA, and how much he will have to bear himself," he said.
"However well this process goes, Simon is likely to be out of pocket by about £20,000. This – and two years of lost earnings, which he can never recover, is the price he has paid for writing an article criticising the BCA for making claims the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled can no longer be made. In the game of libel, even winning is costly and stressful.
"To have won this case for Simon is the proudest moment of my career, but if we had the libel laws we ought to have I would never have met Simon at all. Until we have a proper public interest defence scientists and writers are going to have to carry on making the unenviable choice of either shying away from hard-hitting debate, or paying through the nose for the privilege of defending it."
Ely Place Chambers, the chamber of William McCormick QC, one of two barristers who represented Dr Singh, said that the BCA had ended its "ill-fated" claim.
"Dr Singh's predicament as the sole defendant in an action brought in respect of a comment piece in the Guardian newspaper (to which the BCA never directed any complaint) was seen as a rallying point for those concerned about the abuse of UK libel laws in connection with scientific debate."

Defamation - Homework

What is article 19?

Look at the web page about article 19. Answer the following questions in your own words, (not copying and pasting!)

1. Briefly explain what article 19 covers.
2. Read one of the lead stories and then, in your own words, summarise the article.
3. Find out what article 19 has to do with media regulations.

Sunday, 5 February 2012

Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent

Key Points in Manufacturing Consent

Read through the article above. Noam Chomsky was commenting on the media in America.

What does Noam Chomsky mean by the phrase 'manufacturing consent?'

Can the same argument about the media 'manufacturing consent' be aimed at the UK media? Answer giving specific examples.


In relation to contemporary media regulations you will need to look back at the work about news values. What makes the news? Why do certain stories make the news? Most importantly what stories do not make the news?

Further Reading:

Interviews with Noam Chomsky

Opening of the Leveson Inquiry

“The press provides an essential check on all aspects of public life. That is why any failure within the media affects all of us. At the heart of this Inquiry, therefore, may be one simple question: who guards the guardians?”

In relation to the phone hacking scandal explain in your own words the implications  of the opening statement in relation to  the Leveson Inquiry.