Indera
Tamara Harrison-Nedd
What are the underlying values and
ideologies in drug related texts such as ‘Channel 4’s Run: Richard’ and how
does this compare to American texts on the same subject?
“The
reason some drugs are legal and others not has almost nothing to do with
science or health or the relative risks of the drugs. It has almost everything
to do with who uses and who’s perceived to use particular drugs” [1]
At a time in which the war on drugs
and Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No”[2] campaign is debated, it is
fair to say that the media remains as a driving force aiding the ever-changing
representation of drugs. This is clear through the constant shift in how they
are conveyed across both print and film, depending on who is associated with them
subject to their social class or ethnicity. Thus, one could infer that the
media act as the moral entrepreneur’s[3] in using the theme of drugs
to be labelled with specific social groups, such as ethnic minorities, to then reinforce
negative ideologies associated with them. Additionally, the central reading and
panic associated with drug use is “that [they] can kill you”[4]
The war on drugs is an American term
applied to the campaign of the prohibition of drugs and it was largely amplified
in June 1971 by the standing president of the United States, President Nixon,
who declared drugs as “public enemy number one”[5] This lead to its
popularisation in the media resulting in an uprising global panic. An example
of this was through late opinion leader Reagan’s campaign which utilised the
television and print platforms to execute the “three-word mantra and overly
simplistic education program”[6] that attempted to sway the
American youth from drug use. However, this has arguably “failed millions of
children”[7] as statistics support the
fact that everyday 75 people die of heroin overdoses in the USA, which could be
due to the contemporary glamorous representation of drugs in American
film.
It is noteworthy to recognise the alternative
representation of drugs depending on where the text is produced, for instance the
United Kingdom in comparison with the United States. This can be examined through
the social realist text produced by Channel 4 in 2013, Run: Richard, which conveys the struggles of a black recovering
heroin addict and captures Britain’s informative approach to the theme. This
contrasts with several films from the US, which in recent years demonstrates
their more liberal approach to the genre, such as The Wolf of Wall Street 2013, and Limitless 2011, both in which display different male protagonist’s
engagement with drugs with mild inferences towards the damaging effects; and mostly
presenting audiences with a comical and enjoyable cinematic narrative. However,
this liberal approach hasn’t always been at the forefront and this essay will
establish how this representation has changed over time, through looking at the
1936 propaganda text Reefer Madness.
As well as this, we will uncover the reasoning behind why and how Britain present
audiences with the harsh brutalities associated with drug consumption. In
addition to establishing how the US’s approach has changed and is similar to
the UK’s.
Run is a British mini-series that was
created by Jonathan Pearson, Marlon Smith and Daniel Fajemisin-Duncan, which
follows the lives of ‘four gritty no holds’[8] and presents their daily
battles of survival in London. The film was produced by Acme films who are
renowned for their innovative and contentious product style. This is derived
from their core objective of ‘seek[ing] to represent the reality, drama and
diversity of contemporary urban life’[9]. The ‘hardly-sugar coated’[10] narrative was the first to
be written by Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, who both grew up together in Brixton
and ‘want[ed] to tell [their] version of south London’[11] Thus Acme films and
newcomers Fajemisin-Duncan and Smith, paired perfectly together in creating an
honest depiction of the social realism genre, through sharing the same
intentions.
The episode Richard, performed by Lennie James, was the third of the four
interlinking stories and was aired on the 17th July 2013, watched by
1.39 million UK viewers[12]. The narrative itself outlines
the ‘struggles [a heroin addict faces] to stay clean’[13], whilst having to readjust
back into society establish a new relationship with his teenage daughter. The
sensitive sub-plot of Richard’s strive to regain contact with his daughter adds
vulnerability to the character who is often depicted as a social outcast. James
demonstrated a keen interest in partaking in the gritty narrative: “Before I’d
even read the script I’d said yes”[14]– having too, grown up in
Brixton. This therefore indicates the
accurate and fair representation that the directors, Acme films and James, wanted
to elicit through the character Richard, which rewardingly resulted in
“characters which we got to know instantly”[15]
Prior to the Richard episode being aired Channel 4 released two additional clips,
via the website, allowing audiences to mildly connect with the characters. The
text is primarily aimed at a B-D demographic of 18-55 year olds. Due to the
explicit narrative, it is fair to say that a niche audience from the ‘Struggler’,
‘Reformer’ and ‘Explorer’ psychographic[16] groups would be the main consumers,
as they would be most enticed by the social issues moulding the narrative, such
as urban life, drug abuse and dysfunctional families.
The first of the two clips which will
be discussed is Hope[17], which is a dialogue
between Richard and his mother. The clip is set with tungsten blue lighting
creating a natural aesthetic in the working class café. An audience are
introduced to the stereotypical Caribbean lone parent family type (a key
convention of social realism) and the lack[18] of maternal instincts
that the mother has towards her son. The handheld camera alongside the diegetic
background noise of the market, reiterates the lifestyle that follows the D and
E demographic social class[19]. The conversation is exchanged
through medium close ups of the mother, in comparison with the more extreme
close ups of Richard’s lifeless and penurious face. One could connote this to
be the director’s deliberate choice of forcing an audience to engage and build
a personal relationship in terms of Blumler and Katz’s Uses and Gratification[20] theory, with the protagonist, associated in Propp’s
Spheres of Action[21]. Consequently forcing
audiences to embody his emotions: “You don’t believe I’m off it, do you mum?”, reiterating
post-colonialist theory by Alvarado that suggests that black people are often
characterised to evoke pity[22] and in this case, the forty-something
year old recovering addict does this. The non-diegetic sound of the slow
instrumental arises, heightening this emotion and is thus parallel to the
unfortunate uncertainty of the mother’s response, symbolising a lack of hope
that is on Richard’s side.
Furthermore, with reference to
Medhurst’s shorthand for identification[23] theory, the stereotypical
Caribbean lone parent family type that an audience are presented with, provides
them with a greater understanding as to why Richard may have started using as
“illegal drug use is usually associated with dysfunctions manifested in [the]
family”. Thereby reinforcing the prevailing social ideologies in regards to
different family types and the functionality that exists in nuclear families. By
Channel 4 using this scene as one of the teaser clips, one could imply that
they envisioned for the audience to build a sense of empathy towards the recovering
heroin addict that is often scrutinised within society and judged negatively across
news mediums.
In particular, one must recognise
that not all British institutions are willing to display the moral issues
associated with drugs and users, as they instead depict it as deviant behaviour.
This is clear through The Sun, a tabloid newspaper known for their
controversial celebrity scandals, such as: “Tulisa’s Cocaine Deal Shame”[24] The title was plastered
on the front page in block capitals and featured a small photograph of drug
paraphernalia, amplifying the criminality of the story. The use of the noun
‘shame’, in terms of the Hypodermic needle model[25], passively reinforces the
deviancy and embarrassment associated with drug scandals. Alongside this,
another example of the Sun savouring off of a celeb-scandal is through the
story about late Amy Winehouse in 2008: “Amy on Coke”, where the main image consisted
of covert footage of the socially intolerable act, taking place – “Winehouse
smoking on a crack pipe”[26] Through the news institutions incorporating
celebrity news that is ‘unexpected’, in
regards to Galtung and Ruge’s news values[27], that breaks out of the
status quo, shows their underpinning interest in increasing their readership,
whilst corralling audiences away from condoning drug use.
Interestingly, in both the UK and US the
news mediums present drugs in a similar way, often depicting the unfortunate
deaths of young people through taking drugs such as MDMA. The Daily Mail is at
the forefront in ensuring that this moral panic is executed upon their primary audience[28], including parents (25-55
year olds) creating the imagery that reverts back to the 1936 film Reefer Madness – “Tell your children [to
stay away from drugs or they will end up dead]” It is as though the
“newspapers… [carry] lurid stories about the new epidemic and plague”[29], to inject fear upon
audience to maintain power. Lydia Lee comments on this drug hysteria within the
news describing it as “an effort to make society conform [by presenting] biased
messages to the public telling them drugs are harmful and immoral”[30]. Therefore, one could argue
that “the war on drugs is doing more harm than the drugs themselves”[31], as it is weapon used by
leading bodies to maintain hegemonic control.
Furthermore, Channel 4 relays the
harsh and constant confrontation that addicts have with their past, as shown in
Old Haunts[32], containing the binary
opposition[33],
addressed by Levi-Strauss 1958, between Richard and his ex-drug dealer. The
scene begins with a medium long shot of a black tinted Audi, reversing back,
beside Richard, who appears nervous for their upcoming encounter. The dealer
then states: “Old man Rich” – the use of the nickname ‘Rich’, implies close
relations, however the adjective ‘old’ almost acts as a sign to reassure an
audience that he has been clean for a long
time. The dealer’s, [Michael], direct approach in instigating conversation
is shown through the stillness of the medium close ups as he directly looks at
Richard questioning him “Have you seen Jon Jon?” (a fellow heroin addict). This
contrasts significantly with the slight wobbles that complement with the
uneasiness felt by Richard, as the camera returns to his response. His
discomfort is emphasized as the dealer asks: “Do you have a line, just in case
you make a turn?” in which Richard responds shaking his head “I’m alright, but
thank you” – satisfying an audience that he is attempting to make a change.
The diegetic dialogue finalises with
the dealer stating, “You’ll get hungry soon, you lot always do” and then drives
of. His use of ‘hungry’ resonates animalistic imagery personifying the
recovering addict and detracting all of his humanity. Similarly, this imagery
is transparent across tabloid print platforms where drug users are described as
“snorters and tokers”[34], diminishing their entire
persona and objectifying their character.
Interestingly, by Channel 4 using
this as the other short clip, it is hard to refute that they want an audience
to embark upon the recovering addict’s emotional journey and to refrain from
the norm of labelling him as a “junkie” or the scourge of society.
Channel 4 is grounded with the core
brand values of creativity, innovation and diversity[35] and in previous years
have been scrutinised for being “responsible for introducing generations of
youngsters to drugs”[36]. As it is a public
service broadcaster it is in their best interest to ensure that they are
informing and educating audiences, therefore it is essential that they are the
first to uncover new and raw narratives to insight audiences. It is fair to say that their representation
has detracted from glamorisation, as research proves that “no respondent said
TV presented a positive image of drug taking”[37] And instead, it can be
argued that Channel 4 in particular have presented the harsh brutality that
follows drug addiction, as presented through the social issues in Richard, 2013 and even earlier in The Big Drug Debate[38] and Drugs Live in 2006.
Hosted by opinion leader and ex-heroin
addict, Russell Brand, the debate is comprised with 16-55 year olds, featuring
some recovering addicts and drug users. The final part of the programme revolves
around heroin and is the part which will be discussed to prove the informative
approach that the institution has when displaying drugs. And it has been said,
“TV coverage seems to be especially effective in projecting and sustaining a
negative image of heroin”[39]
The scene preludes with an extreme
close up of a thermal effect, capturing heroin being burnt which then reverts
to a series of empty, desolate locations set on a working class estate. Parallel
to the non-diegetic voice over of the heroin dependent [Samantha], the medium
long shot capturing the wind blowing two empty swings, symbolically suggests the
lack of existence associated with the addict due to her consumption of the
drug. The underclass proletariat mise-en-scene is complementary to the narrative
and lifestyle of a heroin addict – bare, through the lack of colour. Similarly,
the urban aesthetic reflects the imagery found Simon Wheatley’s 2010
photographic series[40] capturing drug culture
amongst British youth and Grime artists, echoing the social demographic of
those associated with the drug consumption.
In regards to Richard’s costume, each
shot finds him wearing the same clothes from a fixed palette of khakis to grey,
which blend in with the urban landscape around him, titling his identity as non-existent
and almost background noise. He too often embodies a strong sense of isolation
and disparity, through his lethargic body language and posture. This sombre illustration,
in both fictional and non-fictional texts, proves Channel 4’s de-glamorised
approach in representing drug culture through showing the damaging social
effects.
Earlier texts such as Danny Boyle’s
1996 Trainspotting arguably has a
more ‘glamorous’ appeal to the drug experience. The black comedy was “shown at
least twice by Channel 4… [and] had influenced [viewers]”[41] Andrew Lowe describes
Boyle’s Trainspotting as “neither a
pro nor an anti-drug film. It’s an honest and unsentimental attempt to document
the highs and lows of a dependent lifestyle”[42] This is apparent through
metaphorical journey of a ‘comedown’, which Boyle clearly translates through
the equilibrium state[43], in connection to
structural theorist Todorov, of the user’s beginning their consumption, towards
the disequilibrium state presenting the calamity of addiction. Therefore,
through showing both the ‘highs’ and ‘lows’, it arguably deserved to be “the
second most successful British film”[44], that year.
An audience are able to identify this
sequence of ‘coming up', (equilibrium state), through the immediate scene set
in “Mother Superior”, the dealer’s, house which is painted with vibrant
fuchsias, yellows and greens and would encompass their regular act of taking a
‘hit’. The over-the-shoulder shot of the women receiving a hit from the male is
overshadowed by the diegetic description of Renton, the protagonist, describing
heroin as ones: “best orgasm times by a thousand and it’s no way near”[45] The vivacious colour effectively
mirrors the euphoria of the sexually presented drug intake and detracts from
the explicit effects of drug abuse.
This compares significantly with the
monotonous grey-scaled path of temptation that is unravelled in Richard, such as counselling sessions,
being evicted from hostels and bumping into fellow addicts. It is fair to say,
that Richard addresses the social
problems revolved around drug abuse, as oppose to the detailed effects that
arise from the drug. In addition, the directorial approach differs between the
two texts as shown in Richard through
the scene of addicts in dirty room encrusted with mould and junkie
paraphernalia. The shot is low lit with minute natural lighting peeking through
the curtains reiterating the isolation that drug addicts live in. This
portrayal encompasses the social defects of living as an outcast and being a
drug addict; there is a strong absence of leisure and joy that was intensively depicted
in Trainspotting, showing the supporting
interest that the directors of Richard
wanted to elicit – social problems of drug abuse.
Nevertheless, the previously more
animated drug representation in Trainspotting
compares significantly with the scene of the “grotesquely soiled toilet”[46] that Renton submerges his
face into, contrapuntal to the classical music, canvasing his eagerness for his
next hit. Another example of Boyle accentuating the lows and ‘come down’[47] experienced by a
dependent is through the scene set in Renton’s bedroom where the wide angle
shot exposes the psychological panics that follow withdrawal symptoms. The
bedroom acts as a metaphor of his erratic mind state, shown through the
constant rapid zooms and unorthodox imagery, e.g. medium long shot of a dead
baby crawling on the ceiling. Thus, despite the equilibrium sexualisation of
the drug, the dis-equilibrium state heightens the brutal effects that follow it.
Similarly, in the US text directed by
Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 Requiem for a
Dream, this surrealistic imagery is conveyed. This is through the character
Sara – an elderly woman addicted to diet pills and dependent for “ersatz
company”[48]
Her comedown state is shown through the canned laughter that accompanies the
terrifying trip of her delusional wellbeing e.g. the medium close up of the TV shouting
at her.
Furthermore, Reefer Madness which is a 1936 American propaganda film about drugs
is an example of the drug moral panic that existed in the US prior to 9/11. It
is described as an “overcooked stew of heavy moralizing and dope-ravaged
depravity”[49],
which is clear through its exploitation of the drug cannabis. The film was
directed by Louis Gasnier and was originally titled “Tell Your Children” and financed by a church
group, intended to be shown to parents as a morality tale. Interestingly,
despite the media in 2016 containing less overt anti-drug propaganda, one could
argue that these messages still remain subliminally through the news mediums
discussed above.
The film itself begins with a news
style bulletin with a note to the audience apologising for the “upcoming menace
[which is] destroying American youth”, followed by several close ups of drug
related news articles. The shot reverts to a white male of an A demographic,
with the profession of a teacher/professor, exclaiming the dangers of cannabis onto
the naive early 20th century audience, who would be passive, in
regards to the Hypodermic model[50], to the underpinning
injection of hegemonic ideologies. A Marxist[51] reading would suggest
that the scene resembles imagery of the dictatorship within the government
associated with the war on drugs, ultimately reinforcing hegemonic control.
Initially the ‘dictator’ has his back turned to an audience, shown through the
medium long shot, as he was addressing the parent, which suddenly changed to a
medium close up of the male facing the viewer directly, placing an audience
into the seats of the parents. The aesthetic of the shot resembles a news style
documentary which is enhanced through the scene changing to high angle shots of
marijuana fields and exposing the ‘menacing’ content. This mirroring of
non-fictional text conventions creates a hyper-reality setting, with regard to
Baudrillard[52],
that would consequently create a false-sense of validity associated with drugs
to its audience.
Through the style of editing it is
clear that the text intended to educate a 1930’s audience, however, a 21st
century audience would consume this text differently. This contrasts immensely
with the approach in drug representation in Richard
where they present it to an audience with mild exposures of the brutality of
drug consumption; as well as the intense social effects that it can have one’s
self and being, without marginalising social groups (shown through the ethnic
diverse group of recovering addicts). Ultimately, in Reefer Madness Hall’s theory would support that the dominant
reading[53] of drugs is a largely
negative one involving the youth, enforcing a moral panic between the binary opposites
– cannabis and the youth.
Nevertheless, Post 9/11 has witnessed
an evolution of the representation of drug culture, especially in the US. From
the 1980’s fixating upon films where specific ethnic groups were labelled with
different drugs, such as Scarface and
the Columbian protagonist Tony Montana, who used the drug cocaine, (“mobile and
a symbol of status”[54]), to climb up the social
ladder. This consequently painted the representation of cocaine drug distributors
as Columbians. Alongside this, the American television series Miami Vice reinforced the relationships
between “The Columbians with cocaine, the Jamaicans with cannabis and the Haitians
with voodoo and hallucinogens”[55] It seems as though the American
film industry have now detracted from labelling specific races with drugs and
instead, with the growing technological developments are creating texts that
will ultimately create box office sales. This is evident through the extreme
graphics and fractal zooms[56] in Limitless 2011 presenting ‘Eddie’, American film star Bradley
Cooper, in wide angle long shots walking through the city with a vivacious
yellow glow reflecting the euphoria and power he received from the drug and presenting
audiences with the supernatural reality of how drug consumption helped empower
him to become a leading financial figure.
Similarly, in The Wolf of Wall Street 2013, which reinforced dominant patriarchal
ideologies, it too tied drug use hand in hand with success (with women and
business). An example of this was the opening scene featuring protagonist ‘Jordan’,
conveyed by Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio, snorting cocaine from a
prostitutes behind. The illustrations of the characters presented by idealised
male actors, whom initially face a form of struggle, but then find success
through enduring drug consumption, with very minor moments of ‘coming down’,
shows the US’s growing interest in portraying drugs in a captivating way that
will attract audiences pleasures as this will ultimately bring in sales.
All of which drastically compare to
Britain’s refrain of purely glamorising drugs as they instead portray the harsh
realities and consequences that subside them, which is due to their social
realism genre as opposed to Hollywood’s big budget entertainment products.
To conclude, it is clear that there
is difference between the representations of drugs, depending on the where the
text is produced. It is also clear that the US have progressed from moral panic
filled propaganda texts such as Reefer
Madness as they are now interested in engaging with contemporary audience’s
interests. Both activist Russell Brand from the UK and Ethan Nadellman from the
US have highlighted the issues revolved around drugs and the fact that “the war
on drugs must end”[57]. In regards to the US,
Nadellman makes extensive reference towards the marginalisation of ethnic
minorities due to the representation of them and drugs, in both fictional and
non-fictional texts. Arguably, films such as Straight Outta Compton 2015, where black males are surrounded by
the narrative of drugs and violence, reiterate the ‘dangerous’[58] aspect of Alvarado’s
theory on black representation. These negative portrayals have led to “the
social mobility of black American’s [to have] suffered collateral damage.
[Consequently] imprisoning one in three black men”[59] Referring back to both Limitless and The Wolf of
Wall Street, it is interesting that both of the males were depicted by
white actors and not black. And black film maker Robert Townsend comments on
the Hollywood film and television industry describing them as “manipulative
buffoons who use black actors only for the roles of pimps, drug addicts, and
prostitutes”[60]
and current texts such as Straight Outta
Compton support this.
Similarly in the UK, reports have
shown that “Black and Asian people are disproportionally targeted”[61] and “almost face double
the chance of being charged”[62] British texts magnify
this, for instance Ill Manors 2012,
in terms of Alvarado, there is a strong sense of danger that is associated with
the characters. For instance, the black drug dealer ‘Kirby’, who is presented
in countless scenes with iconography such as guns associated with criminality
and danger.
Thereby, it seems as though despite
modern texts from the US containing a decreased moral panic in relation to
drugs, it hasn’t detracted from the negative associations of ethnic minorities
and drugs. And similarly, in the UK even though they have refrained from
glamorisation, ethnic minorities’ social status is too affected. Nevertheless,
through the character ‘Richard’, the intense pity surrounding his life and
eagerness for stability, has possibly influenced a UK audience from marginalising
black drug users.
Russell Brand’s documentary, The Big Drugs Debate, portrays Britain’s
more conservative attitude towards drugs, thus explaining the representation of
‘Richard’. In some ways it is as though Richard
is very similar to Reefer Madness
serving as subtle propaganda presenting audiences with the negative effects
without scrutinising the drug itself, in hope that we will feel despondent as
the new ‘fear’ to refrain from partaking in drug culture. Interestingly, “even
though the specific drugs that [are] the focus of the media stories, public
fear and legislative attention changes, the structure of fear and panic remains
the same”[63]
Therefore, as the media are described as “agents of control charged with
upholding the social and moral order”[64], their distorted
depiction of drugs has led to audiences evoking pity and joy around the culture
that subsides it. However, despite the US executing a more positive presentation
of drugs within film through A-list actors and neglecting the war on drugs
frenzy that dominated in the early 1980’s, it seems as though their main
interest now is in creating productions that will be enjoyable for audiences to
increase sales, reiterated through the fact that “the cultural elite only use
the media for enlightenment and entertainment”[65] Whereas, in the UK
through texts such as Run: Richard,
alongside the other British texts discussed, it is clear that the UK are more
concerned about addressing the social issues revolved around drugs in hope that
it will help condemn the use of drugs in today’s social landscape. One could
therefore argue that the war on drugs has subtly stuck with Britain more than
the U.S. through their underpinning display of the moral concerns and effects
of drug use.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Books
Alvarado,
M., Gutch, R. and Wollen, T. (1987). Learning the media. London:
MacMillan Education.
Bennett,
P., Slater, J., & Wall, P. (2006). A2 Media Studies: The Essential
Introdcution. London and New York.
Billsberry,
J., Charlesworth, J., & Leonard, P. (2012). Moving images.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.
Cragg, A. (2000). Knowing the score - Broadcasting Standards
Commission.
Fulcher,
J., & Scott, J. (2011). Sociology (4th ed.). Oxford University
Press.
Harcup,
T., & O'Neill, D. (2001). What Is News? Galtung and Ruge revisited. Journalism
Studies, Taylor and Francis Group.
Herman,
N. J. (1995). Deviance: A symbolic interactionist approach. Dix Hills,
NY: General Hall.
Laspsley,
R., & Westlake, M. Film Theory: An Introduction (2nd ed.).
Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Lay, S. (2002). British Social Realism. London:
Wallflower.
Lee, L. (2015). Drugs in the Media: The production
of Hegemony. Sociological Imagination: Western's Undergraduate Sociology
Student Journal.
Manchel, F. (1990). Film Study:
An Analytical Bibliography. London and Toronto.
Manning, P. (2007). Drugs and popular culture.
Cullompton, Devon, England: Willan Pub.
Murphy, R. (1997). British Cinema - Critical
Concepts in Media and Cultural Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Procter,
J. (2004). Stuart Hall. London: Routledge.
Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. (1997). Crack in
America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stevenson, J. (2000). Addicted: The Myth &
Menace of Drugs in Film.
Torrance, J. (1995). Karl Marx's theory of ideas.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, O. (2006). "Miami Vice" by ONC Wang.
Ejumpcut.org. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC33folder/miamivice.html
Wheatley, S.
(2010). Don't call me urban. Newcastle upon Tyne: Northumbria University
Press.
Journals
Beyer,
J. (2000). TV shrinks drugs responsibility. Broadcast, 5.
Dams,
T. (2000). An Injection of Realism. Broadcast, 14.
James,
N. (1997). Sight and Sound A-z of cinema: intoxication. Sight And Sound,
v7 n2.
Lawerson,
E., & Leigh, D. (2000). Feeling Needled. Sight And Sound, v10 n12.
Macqueen,
A. (2010). Drug madness and the war we can't win. Broadcast, 23.
R Coope, M. (1989). Rehab!. Empire, N2.
Russel, M.
M. (1991). Race and the Dominant Gaze: Narratives of Law and Inequality in
Popular Film.
Moving Texts
Ill Manors. (2012, UK, B. Drew)
Limitless.
(2011, USA, N. Burger)
Miami Vice. (1984, USA, D. Johnson, J.Nicolella, J
A. Contner)
Reefer
Madness. (1936, USA, L. Gasnier)
Requiem
for a Dream. (2000, USA, D. Aronofsky)
Run
- Richard. (2013, UK, D. Fajemisin-Duncan, M. Smith)
Russell
Brand: End the Drugs War. (2012, UK, Channel 4)
Scarface.
(1983, USA, B. De Palma)
The
Big Drugs Debate. (2006, UK, Channel 4)
Trainspotting.
(1996, UK, D. Boyle)
Wolf of Wall Street. (2013, USA,
M.
Scorsese)
Straight
Outta Compton. (2015, USA, F. Gary Gray)
Online
ABC1 Demograpahic | What does ABC1 mean?.
Abc1demographic.co.uk. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from
http://www.abc1demographic.co.uk/
Acmetv.co.uk,.
Acme Films. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://acmetv.co.uk
Awford,
J. (2015). A 17-year-old collapsed and died after 'taking MDMA' on playing
fields. Mail Online. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3096363/Brilliant-teenager-17-collapsed-died-taking-MDMA-playing-fields.html
BBC,.
(2012). Russell Brand: End the Drugs War - BBC Three. Retrieved 11
January 2016, from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04v2zrg
C4
- 4 Careers. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from from http://www.channel4.com/4careers/about_values.html
Chandler, D.
(1995). Uses and Gratifications. Visual-memory.co.uk. Retrieved
25 February 2016, from
http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/short/usegrat.html
Channel
4,. (2006). The Big Drugs Debate. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-big-drugs-debate/on-demand
Channel
4,. Run. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/on-demand/53615-003
Channel
4,. Run - S1-Ep3: Hope. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-hope
Channel
4,. Run - S1-Ep3: Old Haunts. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.channel4.com/programmes/run/videos/all/s1-ep3-old-haunts
Comedown. DrugWise. Retrieved 10
March 2016, from http://www.drugwise.org.uk/comedown/
Eastwood,
N., & Michael Shiner, M. (2013). Ethnic minorities targeted in 'stop and
search' drug policing - 08 - 2013 - News archive - News - News and media - Home.
Lse.ac.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2013/08/DrugPolicing.aspx
Honor President Reagan's Legacy.
(n.d.). Retrieved April 15, 2016, from
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/details_t.aspx?p=RR1005NRL
Journal
Of Labor Economics, 20(3), 538-537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/339610
Magic Bullet Or Hypodermic Needle Theory Of Communication.
(2010). Communication Theory. Retrieved 10 March 2016, from http://communicationtheory.org/magic-bullet-or-hypodermic-needle-theory-of-communication/
McGrath, M.
(2016). Nancy Reagan and the negative impact of the 'Just Say No' anti-drug
campaign. the Guardian. Retrieved 15 April 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/08/nancy-reagan-drugs-just-say-no-dare-program-opioid-epidemic
Nadelmann,
E. (2014). Why we need to end the War on Drugs. Ted.com.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs
Rahim,
S. (2013). Run, Channel 4, review. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 11
January 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10180944/Run-Channel-4-review.html
Schilesinger,
F. (2008). Drug dealers to the stars 'plotted to catch Amy Winehouse smoking
crack pipe on film'. Mail Online. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1094215/Drug-dealers-stars-plotted-catch-Amy-Winehouse-smoking-crack-pipe-film.html
Shmoop
Editorial Team. (2008, November 11). Tzvetan Todorov Quotes.
Retrieved February 25, 2016, from
http://www.shmoop.com/narrative-theory/tzvetan-todorov-quotes.html
Sidhu,
N., Schüttler, K., & James, L. Run (TV Mini-Series 2013). IMDb.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2297604/
Travers, A.
(2011). Limitless Fractal Zoom. Alantravers.com. Retrieved 25
February 2016, from http://alantravers.com/index.php/2011/06/16/fractal-zoom/#more-173
Uktvreviewer.wordpress.com,.
(2013). ‘Run’ | uktvreviewer. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
https://uktvreviewer.wordpress.com/category/run/
Vine,
R. (2013). Lennie James: 'I said yes before I'd even read the script'. Telegraph.co.uk.
Retrieved 11 January 2016, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10174666/Lennie-James-I-said-yes-before-Id-even-read-the-script.html
Vulliamy, E. (2011). Nixon's 'war
on drugs' began 40 years ago, and the battle is still raging. Retrieved April
15, 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/24/war-on-drugs-40-years
Walker,
P. (2013). Black people twice as likely to be charged with drugs possession
– report. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January 2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/ethnic-minorities-likely-charged-drug-possession
Walker,
P., & Collier, H. (2014). Tulisa Contostavlos trial collapses as judge
criticises Sun's Mazher Mahmood. the Guardian. Retrieved 11 January
2016, from
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/jul/21/tulisa-contostavlos-trial-collapses-sun-mazher-mahmood
Wikipedia,.
Run (TV series). Retrieved 11 January 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run_(TV_series)#cite_note-BARB-6
Young &
Rubicam's 4Cs Values Segmentation. (2016). www.4cs.yr.com/uk/.
Retrieved 15 April 2016, from http://www.4cs.yr.com/uk
YouTube.
(2016). Trainspotting streaming online,1996. [online] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RM1WSilRss [Accessed 15 Apr. 2016].
Works Consulted
Books
Alder,
P., & Alder, P. (2012). Drugs and the American Dream: An Anthology.
Altman,
J., & J Everitt, B. (1996). Psychopharmacology -The biological, social
and clinical bases of drug addiction: commentary and debate.
Axelrod-Contrada,
J. (2008). The facts about drugs and society. New York: Marshall
Cavendish Benchmark.
Coomber,
R. (1998). The Control of drugs and drug users. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Harwood Academic Publishers.
Farrell
Brodie, J., & Redfield, M. (2002). High Anxieties - Cultural Studies in
Addiction. University of California Press.
Journals
Aston,
S. (2001). Westbrook doc at Granada. Broadcast, 8.
Cherry,
M. (1999). Drugs in film: popping a vein. Inside Film, n15.
Gibley,
R. (1996). Under the influence. Premiere, v4 n2.
Rose,
J. (2000). Recreation to TV portrayal of drugs unreal. Broadcast, 21.
Six
Degrees of degradation. (1997). Neon, 28-29.
Under
the Influence. (2008). Fade In, v10 n4.
Wootton, D. (2006). C4 drugs special tackle addiction.
Broadcast, 27.
Moving Texts
Giving
up the Weed. (2006). UK.
How
Safe are My Drugs?. (2014). UK.
[1] Nadelmann, E. (2014)
[2] Honor President Reagan’s Legacy
(n.d)
[6] McGrath,M. (2016)
[7] McGrath, M. (ibid).
[8] IMDb (n.d),
Run (TV Mini-Series)
[9] Acmetv.co.uk
(n.d.)
[10] Rahim, S.
(2013)
[11] Vine, R.
(2013)
[12] Wikipedia
(2013), Run (TV Series)
[13] Channel 4
(2013), Run - Episode 3
[14] Vine, R. (2013)
[17] Channel 4
(2013), S1-Ep3: Hope
[20] Chandler, D.
(1995)
[21] Laspsley,R.
& Westlake, M. (1988) p.131
[22] Alvarado, M. (1987)
[23] Bennett, P.
Slater, J & Wall, P. (2006)
[24] Walker &
Collier, (2014)
[26] Schlesinger,
F. (2008)
[27] Harcup, T
& O'Neill, D. (2001)
[28] Awford, J.
(2015)
[30] Lee, L.
(2015)
[32] Channel 4
(2013), S1-Ep3: Old Haunts
[35] Channel4.com,
(n.d.)
[36] Dams, T.
(2000)
[38] Channel
4,(2006) The Big Drugs Debate
[41] Beyer, J.
(2000)
[42] Stevenson, J.
(2000)
[43] Shmoop Editorial Team. (2008)
[46] Murphy, R.
(1997), p.410
[50] Billsberry,
J. Charlesworth, J. & Leonard, P. (2012) p.121
[52] Baudrillard,
J. & Poster, M. (1988) p.2
[53] Procter,
J.(2004)
[55] Wang, O. 2006
[56] Travers, A.
(2011)
[57] BBC (2012)
[58] Fulcher, J.
& Scott, J. (2011)
