Class

Downton Abbey's poster was designed to revolve around their class and straight away denote to the audience what class the characters are a part of. This is made clear from the mise-en-scene used. Their costumes are stereotypical for upper class people from a early 20th century- long, pretty dresses and suits as casual wear, and their clothes cover their entire body. Their poster also includes maids/butlers, which only the richest families had/have. The background, a mansion, also suggests they're a very upper class family as they've been able to afford it. They all look very done up with straight, serious looking faces. Upper class people are stereotyped as being more uptight, meaning even just their facial expressions connote their class. The colour palette used is quite plain and simple.


The colour palette used for this poster is much brighter which gives it a more trashy appearance. Their clothing is much cheaper looking and, especially with the female character, doesn't cover their whole body. The props used, the beer bottle and the blow torch being used to light a cigarette are common for lower class families (not necessarily the blow torch, that's more for comedic effect). Their facial expressions come across as very silly and immature, connoting that they're not an upper class family as richer families appear more formal and strict.

Theories

Keith Gandal's theory (2007) states that lower class people are portrayed as a; "Cultural other," through fashions that deviate from the middle and upper classes. 

A good example of a 'stupid' working class males

Andy Medhurst's 1998 theory; "They are awful because they are not like us," (the us being the middle class producers of media texts).

Richard Butsch (1992) who says working class males in the media are presented as; "Incompetent and ineffectual, often a buffoon, well-intentioned but dumb. In almost all working-class series, the male is flawed, some more than others."

Keith Gandal, in 2007 said that target audiences are drawn in by the; "Sentimental rags-to-riches story," because they like to think of poor people making it big through music and can relate to the lifestyle they have chosen because it is what they might do if they had money.

Practise Essay

How is class portrayed in the extract of Shameless through:

Camera work

Mise-en-scene

Sound

& Editing

In this extract of Shameless, the theories of Keith Gandal (2007), Andy Medhurst (1998) and Richard Butsch (1992) are both supported and disrupted through the media language present in the clip. I will now explore this in more detail with reference to how; camera work, mise-en-scene, sound and editing contribute to constructions of class representation.

In the first 10 seconds, a variety of establishing shots are used to straight away show the audience the setting of the show (flats and council houses). The particular area used connotes that they're lower/working class as it's very urban looking. The angle used is a high angle which makes the audience look down on the lower class area which supports Medhurst's theory that "They are awful because they are not like us." It also uses a non-diegetic voice over of the main character to introduce the characters and the show, but the accent of the character is very chav sounding which is a common stereotype of lower class people, which further connotes their class. 16 seconds into the clip shows off the main character who's narrating the title sequence. The mise-en-scene here, his messy appearance (long hair, stubble and plain clothing) support Gandal's theory that lower class people are portrayed as a; "Cultural other," through fashions that deviate from the middle and upper classes. In another shot just after it the mise-en-scene further suggests their class by using non branded bread which will separate them from a majority of the audience, supporting Medhurst's theory.  His kids are portrayed as slightly violent, even towards his father which fits stereotypes that lower class people are more common to take part in criminal activities. Continuity editing is used for the sake of making the title sequence flow properly, but the camera movement used for a majority of the shots is quite shaky which supports Butsch's theory that states that working class males in the media are presented as; "Incompetent and ineffectual, often a buffoon". The shaky camera movement supports this because the narrator is a working class male, and the audience are used to a still camera supported by a tripod. An eye-line match is used whilst the main character is lying on the floor, but is different because the shots switch between a birds eye view and a worms eye view. By looking up at the kids and down on the adult it gives them more power, and this unusual idea separates their family from the audience which supports Andy Medhurst's theory about being "awful because they are not like us". 

Towards the end of the title sequence dark lighting is used which will further support Medhurst's theory as darkness connotes bad things. Continuity editing is used when showing the people surrounding the campfire and a variety of shots are used to show off the different characters involved. All of them support Gandal's theory that lower class people are portrayed as "cultural other" through their fashion. The youth all support Osgerby's theory that goes onto argue that; “The portrayal of youth is not entirely pessimistic,” he argues that “Mixed metaphors” appear when analysing the representation of youth. He claims; “Dual stereotyping of youth,” creates these mixed metaphors that Dick Hebdige (1988) termed; “Youth as fun,” and “Youth as trouble maker.”