The teen film is subject to much debate as a result of its conflicting definitions and categories. For this entry I am referring to any film where the protagonists are 12-20 years old (Thomas Shary, 2002, 19).Furthermore the term adolescent and teen are not strictly interchangable, as I have used below. It is worth noting that in some circles teen is considered the social construct, while adolescent is a biological definition. However as Felix Guatarri argues many of these biological points are in fact social constructs (Guattari, 1979, 67). I wish to address the break between the filmic image and reality. Obviously, as established below, the term reality is contentious, however for this argument I am using it to describe the teen audience who interacts with the film.
Most adolescent films deal with the possibility of the teen character moving from the relative innocence of childhood to adulthood, by passing through the adolescent domain. Already we are coming into a conflict with reality. As Guattari states, adolescence is a stage of constant movement, or “becomings” (Guattari, 1979, 63). Therefore the filmic medium cannot truthfully depict the event of adolescence, as it is fluid. Grease (1978) attempts this movement during the carnival scene. This is the crucial makeover scene, where Sandy moves from childhood into the dangerous realm of adolescence. The black leather, curled hair, high shoes and cigarette all denote the supposed dangers of adolescence. However, her awkwardness with the cigarette suggests the impossibility of adopting a particular identity overnight. She cannot simply move from one state to another, rather it is a process of constant development.We could consider her experience a machinic subjectivity; the subjectivity produced by the teen machine. Guattari defines machinic subjectivity as “everything that contributes to provide a sensation of belonging to something” (Guattari, 1996, 101) . Indeed, Sandy’s desire is to be adequate for Danny and recieve satisfactory judgement from the Pink Ladies.
A more contemporary example is She’s all that(1999), which functions on the premise of the makeover scene. Whereby art student Laney Boggs is “made over” to conform with the pre-supposed image of adolescence, demanded by her peers. The inauguration into adolescence is suggested in both cases to be a matter of image, as opposed to experience. Laney’s image eventually slips, as I would argue Sandy’s does, as the identity she is forced to adopt is artificial. Guattari suggests, the movement from childhood (which he acknowledges is a flawed category) “opens up” entirely new experience and opportunities, “but almost immediately, everything closes up, and a whole series of institutionalised social controls and the internalisation of repressive fantasies march in to capture and neutralise new virtualities” (Guattari, 1979, 64). Laney’s image can be read as a commodified adolescence, which is nicely packaged but lacking experience. It is the antithesis of the adolescence as it based soley upon the stasis of the ‘after image’.
I do not wish to suggest here that adolescents are immune from the teen machine, which bounds individuals in certain power structures. In truth, these films feed the teen machine, which promises the adolescent that as long as they conform to the power structure they will belong. Ultimately, though this is a false ideal. The adolescent is in a constant state of change, while the filmic adolescent can maintain the image at the end of the film in the collective memory of the spectator.
This is really interesting, Steph. I wonder how possible it is to distinguish between the machine of genuine “adolescence”, or “becoming-adolescent” — which is defined by Guattari as a series of becomings (“becoming-child, becoming-woman, becoming-sexual…” 1979, 63) — with the “teen machine” as you’ve defined it, this commofified, homogenised, neutered version of adolescence which is marketed to adolescents as ideal.
More to the point, how do we distinguish between the subjectivities which are produced by these two machines? Is a teenager who loves Grease and She’s All That still capable of genuine becomings, of exploring the “new virtualities”? Obviously, the answer is probably yes, and that any average adolescent is going to be dealing with a combination of the genuine upheavals of adolescence ith the controlling (though comforting) representations of the “teen machine”.
Also, how does Skins fit into this? That’s probably the question on everyone’s lips at the moment, really. I’d argue that Skins, while of course not a perfect representation by any means, comes a lot closer to an image of a free (and threatening!) adolescence than something like Grease.
Which is not me saying I don’t love Grease!
I think we have to consider adolescence as simply part of a larger part of “becomings”. I think ideally what Guattari is suggesting moving beyond static categories, because they confine our subjectivity. However, with the industrial and legal machines at work, adolescence, childhood and adulthood will remain age bound categories.
I agree, She’s all that and Grease can’t stop the possibility of becoming, but i think they are part of a wider process that seeks to confine our subjectivity. I think the cinematic form has the possibly to legitimise or disrupt the commodified teen machine.
I agree as well regarding skins as to the production of a free adolescence, but again these kids are still acting out particular roles, which are designated to them by a the teen machine. They all seek to constrain Casey’s subjectivity by deriding her view of the world. She is forced by the parentals to conform to the appropriate lifestyle choices, which will create a normative behavioral pattern.
I think the very interesting thing here is why do we classify Skins as a more accurate presentation of adolescence as opposed to Grease. There are some very obvious discrepancies such as the age of the actors involved, which limits the accuracy, but what else? I’d go on, but need to relax, and chill on easter for a bit.
Re Skins, though, I would argue that the controlling structures, parental or otherwise, are presented in a very negative light. Although the ending of Cassies’ episode, where she eats the hamburger, is quite ambiguous, the clinic, her parents and so on are all presented as highly manipulative forces. Looking at Chris’s episode, the final image of the episode is of him taking more Viagra — essentially, the catastrophic events of the episode haven’t affected his desire to just have a good time and fuck what’s socially accepted. So I think Skins does attempt to encourage the free exploration of subjectivity. That’s just my opinion, anyway.
And whether or not it’s a more accurate representation of a “true” adolescence than Grease is an excellent point, because it would seem I was positing this idea of “real” adolescence, which is highly debatable.
I started writing a comment…but then it got long and I decided not to waste it here but to use it as my very own blog. So there!
Also, ‘Steph’s Blog’? C’mon! That’s the best you could do? Please tell me you are least being ironic or something?
I’ll take it as a compliment that i inspired such a long post.
Hey I couldn’t come up with a better name, and ‘there will be blogs’?? I like the karl marx clip though, where did you find it?