Disability Representation Practice Essay

How is disability represented in the extract?

Refer to:

Camera work

Mise-en-scene

Sound

Editing

In 1998, Jessica Evans argued that disabled people are ‘punished by being excluded from ordinary life’. The media language in the extract supports Evans theory in a number of ways and shows examples of when this can happen.

This extract starts with a close up shot of a fence and barbed wire; this could possibly represent a cage that keeps the character shut inside. This links with Evans theory that disabled people have “Strict rules of decorum involving standards of privacy, decency and dignity effect representation”. The next shot shows a close up of the disabled mans face – revealing his scars. This links with some of the stereotypes (Barnes, 1992) of disabled people; for example the character is a victim or subject of violence and is incapable of fully participating in every day life. The next shot shows an eye-line match while the characters are having a conversation in the building site where the disabled character is trying to get his old job back, which includes over-the-shoulder shots. During this shot, there is the diegetic sound of people in the background.

When the character asks if there is any possibility for his job back, the other characters try and make excuses for why he can’t. This supports Evans theory that disabled people are seen as “childish, dependant and underdeveloped,” connoting that disabled people are treated differently because of the way they look or act. During this scene, there is parallel editing that shows the conversation between the two characters about the disabled man returning to his job and the character that is sat in the vehicle’s facial expressions that suggest it will be bad news for the disabled character. Emphasis is put onto the disabled mans scars by changing from a close up of the character he is talking to, to an extreme close up of his own face when he is talking.

Later on, the disabled character tries to help his wife with the shopping from the car. When he came behind her to pick up the shopping, she was startled because she didn’t know he was there and screamed. The camera shows an extreme close up of his face after his wife turns around; this suggests that she was startled by his appearance rather than because she was surprised that he was behind her. This supports Evans theory that seeing disability “causes unpleasure” to the viewer. In terms of mise-en-scene, this scene happens in a normal environment of a street of houses connoting that the disabled character has freedom rather than before when the fence was in front of him; but because of this freedom, he is frightening normal people and is somewhere where he might not think he belongs.

After the disabled character realises he has scared his wife, he walks away. This suggests that he thinks it is because of his appearance and doesn’t want to be somewhere where he will only be frightening people. When his wife goes after him, there is hand-held camera movement in the camera work that could represent his anger and frustration as he walks off, and also his wife’s determination to make him know that he misunderstood. This links with some of Barnes’ stereotypes; for example, he could be incapable of a worthwhile relationship, and also incapable of fully participating in everyday life.

After he leaves the quiet housing street, he walks through a busy town environment. During his time here, the camera shows many ‘normal’ people on the street staring at him. There is parallel editing that shows medium shots of him walking at a fast pace through the street, and also point of view shots of people looking at him. This supports Barnes theory that disabled people can be seen as “freak shows”. During this scene, there is a non-diegetic drum beat as he walks which creates an intense atmosphere connoting that he is still angry and frustrated with the way he looks and the way he is being treated. This supports Barnes theory that disabled people have “aggressive anger” because of these reasons.

He then goes to an office where he complains about the way he looks and the fact that he isn’t getting compensation from the army because his injuries “won’t affect his everyday life”. Throughout this scene, the camera angles suggest the amount power and authority there is between the characters: when the camera is facing the disabled character, there is a low angle that suggest that he has no power and is below the other character, whereas there is a high angle when the camera is facing the other character; suggesting that he has all the power and that the viewer should look up to him. During this conversation between the characters, there is eye-line match editing and over the shoulder shots. In terms of mise-en-scene, the dark lighting in the room suggests anger from the disabled character and also the idea that he should live in the dark because of his appearance as he is seen as a “A burden / outcast” (Barnes, 1992) when in public. The line shadows on his face created from the light shining through the blinds could again represent a cage or being behind bars like an animal because of the way he looks. Again, this links with Barnes theory that disabled people are seen as “freak shows”, and Evans theory that people have “Strict rules of decorum involving standards of privacy, decency and dignity effect representation”.