Juvenile Delinquency and Dysfunctional Families in Francis Ford Coppola’S the Outsiders and Rumble Fish
Juvenile Delinquency and Dysfunctional Families in Francis Ford Coppola’s The Outsiders and Rumble Fish
Diplomarbeit
Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
einer Magistra der Philosophie
an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
vorgelegt von
Katharina HABERL
am Institut für Amerikanistik
Begutachter: Ao.Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Klaus Rieser
Graz, 2016
I want to thank my parents, friends, and teachers.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Theoretical Background I: Juvenile Delinquency ...... 4 2.1. Definition and Historical Aspects ...... 4 2.2. “Where are Mum and Dad?” – Family Troubles as a Symptom of Delinquency ...... 6 2.3. Individual Factors and Delinquency ...... 9 2.4. Youth Gangs ...... 11 2.5. Juvenile Delinquency in Film ...... 15 3. Theoretical Background II: Dysfunctional Families ...... 18 3.1. Dysfunctional Families and the Problem of Definition ...... 18 3.2. Physical Abuse, Neglect, and Alcoholism in the Family ...... 22 3.3. The Adolescent’s Response: Conduct Disorders and Rebellion ...... 29 3.4. The Influence of Siblings ...... 31 4. The Outsiders & Rumble Fish– An Outline ...... 34 4.1. Plot Synopsis The Outsiders ...... 34 4.2. Plot Synopsis Rumble Fish ...... 35 5. Analyzing Juvenile Delinquency in The Outsiders & Rumble Fish ...... 37 5.1. The Outsiders and Rumble Fish – typical Juvenile Delinquency Films? ...... 37 5.2. Hollywood’s Interference in a Realistic Representation of Youth Gangs ...... 43 6. Analyzing the Family in The Outsiders & Rumble Fish ...... 52 6.1. Dysfunctional Families – The Root of All Evil? ...... 52 6.2. “My brother’s the coolest.” – Sibling Relations ...... 60 7. Conclusion ...... 66 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………...69
Illustrations…………………………………………………………………………………………....74
1. Introduction
“You’ll never get me alive!” (01:36:21) are The Outsiders’ Dallas Winston’s last words before he gets shot by the police. The portrayal of rebellious youth has been entrenched in film and cinema since the early days of filmography. Viewers are so fascinated by the idea of the “bad boy” that directors and screenwriters are trying to reinvent more and more stories about the defiant outsider. The genre of juvenile delinquency ('JD') emerged, presenting the viewers with the thrills of hoodlum life, pleasing people’s needs to put themselves in the shoes of the tough (anti-)hero for some hours. While 'JD' films have undergone a lot of changes throughout the past century, the obsession with bad boys remains the same. In order to amplify the stories about juvenile delinquency, stereotypes and clichés are applied, creating an even bigger yet prefabricated myth of the bad boy. This includes the broken home, difficult family relations and the rebellion against a society in which outlaws have no place or any chance of acceptance and integration.
In this study, I offer an analysis of two pertinent films, using them as examples to show how juvenile delinquency is portrayed by Hollywood and perceived by the audience. For this purpose, I discuss factors for rebellious and oppositional behavior, highlighting the aspect of the dysfunctional family. The two films examined for this analysis are Francis Ford Coppola’s The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, both released in 1983 by Warner Brothers. The two films exhibit the struggle of teenage boys from dysfunctional families, looking out for perspectives and chances to lead a meaningful life. When initially watching Rumble Fish, I was not only intrigued by the cinematographic style and the skills by the main actors Mickey Rourke, Matt Dillon and Dennis Hopper but also noticed a potential for investigating the complex relationship between the two brothers and the family situation as a whole. Being strongly reminded of the film The Outsiders, also based on a novel by S.E. Hinton like Rumble Fish, I was prompted to do an investigation of the two 'JD' films to show to what extent the concepts of juvenile delinquency and dysfunctional families coincide.
The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are films in which the sociological aspect is quite fundamental. The characters’ antisocial behavior is mainly due to troubling, if not disturbing, social circumstances. They are not only avoided by society but also face difficult situations within their own homes, leading to an impaired psyche. More explicitly, the boys experience neglect, abuse, or loss of parents and try to deal with the situation as good as they can but seemingly have no chance to prevent their own downfall. Thus, the films’ stories raise some interesting questions, when taking a closer look at the sociological element: In what ways do 1 the films create the image of the bad boy? In how far do sociological factors influence juvenile delinquency? Is a dysfunctional family a seal for rebellious, oppositional behavior? And how does Hollywood influence a realistic portrayal of troubled youth?
This study discusses how juvenile delinquency is depicted in Coppola’s two movies, arguing that social and environmental factors are the underlying principles that eventually lead to a troubled life as an outsider of society. In this analysis, I seek to deconstruct stereotypes commonly applied by film directors to create the bad boy and convey the image of the misunderstood outcast. I further investigate the social relationships in the films, providing a psychological insight into the characters. By doing so, I also want to point out how these scenes evoke certain feelings among the implied spectators, leaving them in a tense mood. A close analysis of both films supports my thesis; thus, I will investigate the films’ narrative, their iconic and semiotic patterns as well as including the psychoanalytical approach. Hence, the work focuses on the examination of the link between poor social relations and juvenile delinquency in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish and its influence on family representation.
My thesis is structured in five parts, divided into two theoretical parts to support the film analysis, one part that provides plot summaries of the two movies, and two analytical parts that particularly deal with the characteristics of the two films. The theoretical main chapters, entitled “Theoretical Background I: Juvenile Delinquency” and “Theoretical Background II: Dysfunctional Families”, provide a historical basis as well as theoretical reflections which are necessary to understand the correlation of social factors and antisocial behavior. In “Theoretical Background I” I present definitions of juvenile delinquency, discussing the concept of juvenile delinquency and its origins. As a next step, I emphasize the connection to parenting practices, providing several studies that undermine the influence of social factors. In order to present a broader framework, I also discuss individual factors that lead to juvenile delinquency. As it is crucial for the better understanding of the films, I further present the topic of youth gangs, again offering a definition and a historical basis. I describe the various types of gangs and the nature and features of these groups. To close this first chapter, I show how juvenile delinquency has become manifested in film and cinema, offering an overview of its cinematic history and development.
The purpose of “Theoretical Background II” is to put forward theories on family structures, highlighting problems with defining the dysfunctional family and the blurry boundaries of this concept. Again it is crucial to provide a historical background, showing the massive changes the family has undergone since the Industrial Revolution. To further frame 2 the concept of the dysfunctional family I discuss three common malfunctions, namely physical abuse, neglect, and alcohol abuse, all of them apparent in the two films as well. In relation to this, I explore the child’s reaction to domestic troubles, dealing with oppositional conduct behavior and antisocial demeanor. Finally, I demonstrate in how far siblings cause dysfunctions within a family and how they affect the family’s relations. For this purpose I add theories on siblings, including Alfred Adler’s Birth Order Theory. This subchapter is significant for the analysis of brotherhood in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish. My two theoretical parts are supported by a broad range of literature on juvenile delinquency, youth gangs, family problems and dysfunctional family patterns as well as the filmic representation of masculinity and youth.
This study’s main part includes the films’ analyses, dealing with the filmic representation of juvenile delinquency, youth gangs and dysfunctional families. To support my analytical part, I provide a chapter on the films’ plot synopses, named “The Outsiders and Rumble Fish – an Outline” which is crucial for the understanding of the subsequent two analytical chapters. In my first analytical chapter “Analyzing Juvenile Delinquency in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish” I start with discussing the background of the two movies. For this purpose, I shortly talk about the director, Francis Ford Coppola, and supply extracts from selected interviews he has given. I additionally investigate the films’ reception by including some film reviews by The New York Times and other renowned newspapers and magazines. On the basis of several examples from the two films I want to show to what extent The Outsiders and Rumble Fish add to the genre of 'JD' films and how Coppola portrays delinquent youth, society and the police. As a next step I want to explore the depiction of youth gangs in both movies and argue whether or not they apply to the theory and how far stereotypes are apparent in characters and storyline. For this purpose, I particularly focus on iconic representation and gender differences.
In “Analyzing the Family in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish” I examine the family situation in the two movies, linking it to the characters’ antisocial conduct and reveal psychoanalytical patterns. Thus, I want to show how dysfunctional families and juvenile delinquency correlate in the films, highlighting sociological factors discussed in the theoretical parts. Additionally, I will give a thorough analysis of the two major sibling relationships in the films, deconstructing the concept of brotherhood and discussing the underlying dysfunctions of an ill brother-relationship. To support my reflections, I provide two scene analyses that perfectly portray the complex relationships within a family. By doing
3 so, I hope to add to the theories about cinematic representation of the socially troubled adolescent and the environmental factors that determine the juvenile delinquent’s choices in life.
2. Theoretical Background I: Juvenile Delinquency
2.1. Definition and Historical Aspects
Juvenile delinquency is considered a major social problem in many societies worldwide. But is this phenomenon a new one, linked to the changes of society and family since the Industrial Revolution or has juvenile delinquency always been around? Furthermore, what causes delinquency among the youngest members of our society and when do we talk about real crime? This chapter shall provide the necessary information to understand and embed juvenile delinquency within the greater frame of this diploma thesis.
A simple definition for juvenile delinquency is suggested by Pearce, who argues that it is an “anti-social conduct in the young and youthful”. (1952: 1) Von Trotha further defines delinquency as an act which infringes legal norms. (cf. 1974: 6) Considering their historical context, it is to be noted, though, that Pearce’s and von Trotha’s definitions date back to the 1950s and 1970s when juvenile delinquency still caused hysterical reactions within society. According to Shoemaker, who offers a more recent definition, the term delinquency includes not only serious criminal activity but also so-called 'status offenses' such as running away from home, skipping school and disobedient behavior towards parents or authorities. (cf. 2013: 3) As McLaughlin and Muncie point out, the actual concept of juvenile delinquency is rather new, dating back to the Victorian Era, when systems of justice divided criminals in juvenile and adult for the first time. (cf. 1993: 156f) The historical material shows that already more than thousand years ago, the grandson of King Alfred punished younger offenders less harshly as he considered it too cruel. (cf. Pearce 1952: 2) This example also proves that crime among children and adolescents has always existed and is not a new phenomenon, which is also supported by Wiley Sanders’ book Juvenile Offenders for a Thousand Years (1970) about the history of delinquency. As mentioned above, the Victorian era was a turning point in the history of juvenile delinquency, the emergence of the working class was quickly associated with problems of immoral behavior such as 'parental neglect and irresponsibility', thus leading to crime among the youngest. (cf. McLaughlin and Muncie 1993: 157) It was only in 1899, however, that the first juvenile court was established in Chicago and research on 4 juvenile delinquency became more and more important from the 1960s onwards. (cf. Ferdinand 1977: 7) Pearce points to the fact that modern psychology and Freud’s work on the unconscious have further changed the way the law deals with young offenders and criminals in general. (cf. 1952: 8) Adding to this, “the concept of adolescence constructed within the rapidly developing disciplines of social psychology and child psychology” changed the traditional attitudes toward juvenile delinquents. (McLaughlin and Muncie 1993: 159) Summarizing, juvenile crime has always existed in some form or other, but the concept of it as well as the way it is dealt with, are rather recent.
The most common measure against juvenile delinquency is state intervention, which from the 19th century onwards has been considered the most appropriate way of interfering. State intervention can be drawn back to the concept of parens patriae, which implies that the state is given control over the rearing of children, exceeding the authority of parents. (cf. Shoemaker 2013: 27) Among the first consequences was the introduction of Reformatory Schools to restore the idea of the innocent and moral child; however, these were not beyond dispute as some opponents argued that all offenders should be punished the same way, no matter the age. (cf. McLaughlin and Muncie 1993: 160) In urban centers, the idea of 'placing out' juvenile offenders came into being in the middle of the 19th century. Although not an official practice, conspicuous children in the streets of New York were put on trains and brought to farming families in the Midwest where they would learn hard work and were taught religious and moral values. (cf. Shoemaker 2013: 16) These examples show that during the 19th century, officials had no concrete ideas of how to deal with juvenile delinquency but rather tried to either get rid of the problem by sending these children away or by locking them into Reformatory Schools in order to prevent further trouble. McLaughlin and Muncie summarize the problem as follows: “Having invented the delinquent and established the principle of a child’s diminished responsibility, penal and welfare professionals and reformers have continually struggled to deliver adequate and appropriate responses.” (1992: 160)
Delinquency laws and juvenile courts were established in the early 20th century throughout the United States. Laws were passed that considered the family situation and also focused on psychological treatment, thus reacting to recent progress and discoveries in psychoanalysis. (cf. Shoemaker 2013: 25) Throughout the following years, these laws were further developed, changed and altered towards a more social approach as delinquent children became associated with social deprivation and the need for care. (cf. Prins 1973: 131f) Soon, a link was established “between 'problem' families, the delinquent young and the
5
(re)production of a criminal 'underclass'”. (McLaughlin and Muncie 1992: 155) Nowadays, the focus is set on prevention. Many psychologists argue that prevention at an early age is most important in order to detect a potential risk for later delinquency as Van Domburgh et al. argue in their work Tomorrows' Criminals – The Development of Child Delinquency and Effective Intervention. The authors state that in the U.S. the number of children (under the age of 13) accused of committing a crime is comparatively much smaller than the number of teenagers but from the late 1980s to the late 1990s “the nature of crimes for which these children were arrested changed considerably: property crimes went down while violent crimes increased by 45%”. (cf. 2008: 21) Instead of punishing young offenders after they committed a crime, so-called nonjustice delinquency prevention involves the counseling of parents and their children, programs in schools and the support for troubled families through nurses, day care providers or social workers. (cf. Siegel and Welsh 2014: 300) Thus, it is hoped that delinquency among children and teenagers can be decreased and controlled.
Contemporary views of delinquency are strongly influenced by mass media and society’s thirst for exposure and intimate details of people’s lives, according to Prins. (cf. 1973: 129) Reports of juvenile crime acts in papers reinforce the feeling that juvenile delinquency is a major social problem. Adding to this, it has become a topic in popular culture and even is a film genre on its own. Therefore, people are constantly confronted with the issue of young offenders and again, the impression is created that juvenile delinquency is a rather recent problem causing many to lament that today’s youth is decaying. Nevertheless, juvenile delinquency is an actual problem and needs to be tackled. For this purpose, it is important to understand the causes and correlations for young people’s criminal behavior, which I will discuss in the following two subchapters.
2.2. “Where are Mum and Dad?” – Family Troubles as a Symptom of Delinquency
“At the 1989 Conservative Party Conference, the Home Secretary announced that 'the family is our first defence against crime'. This idea surfaced again in 1991 following 'joy riding' disturbances on housing estates in Oxford and Teyneside. Amidst claims that the police had not acted quickly enough, the Home Secretary suggested that the question should not be 'Where are the police?' but 'Where are mum and dad?'” (McLaughlin and Muncie 1992: 155)
This example from England suggests that there is a direct link to parents and family if a child attracts the police’s attention. It is arguable that parents’ failure in raising and educating their own children can lead to misbehavior and criminal activities. According to 6
Dishion et al. four factors constitute their framework for disruptive child behavior: intra- individual factors (e.g., gender); relationship processes (e.g., parent and peer influences); behavioral settings (e.g., neighborhood, school); and community contexts (e.g., media). (In Hoeve et al. 2008: 91) Taking a closer look at relationship processes it is necessary to examine the role of parenting and parent psychopathology. The discourse on parental influence includes the idea that children cannot be fully responsible for themselves and that deprivation at home is a strong influencing factor for which the child cannot be punished. Thus, it is argued that both children and their parents need professional help and support.(cf. McLaughlin and Muncie 1992: 162) Hoeve et al. remark, that many studies have been carried out to examine the relation between family and disruptive child behavior indicating that parenting styles such as neglect, rejection, little discipline and weak parent-child relationships, in general, contribute strongly to delinquency, even more than structural factors such as socioeconomic status and family constellations. (cf. 2008: 92) Adding to this, Shoemaker argues that the former stereotype of juvenile delinquents from a broken home (i.e. one or both parents are absent from the home due to separation, divorce, or death) is outdated. He states that recent empirical research found that broken homes are not an indicator for juvenile delinquency; however, it can have long-term effects on the child’s psychology. (cf. 2013: 131)
The family came into focus approximately around the 1960s and replaced the delinquent as an object of state intervention and consequently “[t]he traditional concepts of criminal justice – individual responsibility, guilt, innocence and punishment – were to be replaced with care, protection, welfare, treatment, and rehabilitation”. (McLaughlin and Muncie 1992: 163) It was understood that the parents had a considerable impact on the child’s behavior and that it was often them who needed support urgently in order to cope with the situation at home and to put an adequate effort in the child rearing to prevent their children from criminal activities. Interestingly, those parents who are criminal themselves seem to indirectly “teach” their children the same behavior, as children tend to take on the same behavioral patterns and manners as their parents. (cf. Shoemaker 2013: 137) However, bad parenting can be multifaceted; an authoritarian just like a permissiveness parenting has negative effects on the child, most studies show that neglectful parenting is most commonly associated with delinquency. (cf. Hoeve et al. 2008: 92f)
Families, in which physical or psychical abuse are common, also influence the younger ones in a negative way as they show their children that violence is a common way to
7 cope with a difficult situation and that aggressive behavior is normal among people. (cf. Shoemaker 2013: 140) Consequently, children will believe that their parents’ behavior at home is also adequate in social interaction with peers, strangers or authorities. A lack of respect and discipline will lower a child’s inhibition threshold making it more likely to engage in criminal activities and all kinds of action that would normally be considered “wrong”. Siegel and Welsh remark that dysfunctional families often produce a vicious cycle as their own children and the generations afterwards will be prone to troubles with the law and social problems in general. (cf. 2011: 182) Over the years, there has been a lot of discussions whether to punish or rather professionally support the family. After the welfare approach of the permissive 1960s, governments started to tend towards a more conservative and stricter way of handling delinquency and make parents discharge their duties. As stated in McLaughlin and Muncie the 1991 Act emphasizes the parents’ responsibilities by: 1) compelling parents to attend court if their children are in trouble; 2) making parents responsible for the financial penalties incurred by their offspring because 'it brings home to them the reality of the consequences of their children’s behavior and the implications for their actions'; 3) binding over parents as a strong incentive to improve their supervision of their children and hence makes parenting a “law and order issue”. (1992: 180)
Hoeve et al. remark that harsh parenting practices were often an indicator or a trigger for criminal conduct among the children, but actually environmental factors influence the persistence of it. Therefore, the peer group and the pressure to belong to a certain gang effect social mimicry and thus young delinquents only reinforce their criminal behavior. (cf. 2008: 95) The authors further state that parental influence is especially strong in the years before school, but with the entering of school, social risk factors increase and peers take on a significant role. (ibid. 103) From a certain age, children choose their own role models and quite often they stop looking up to their parents and rather place value on their friends’ opinions and attitudes. As a consequence, young people, who are also susceptible, both influence and get influenced by peers and possibly find themselves engaged in criminal activities. The fact that the children’s friends are often similar can be linked to mutual selection process or to processes of mutual influence. (cf. Koot et al. 2008: 84) If their parents are neglectful it is doubtable when or whether they will know about their offspring’s offenses; it is, however, probable that the state finds out before. “Integrating child and parent personality characteristics within parenting models” would, therefore, be a promising
8 approach to improve intervention programs, which together with early prevention are highly important when tackling juvenile delinquency. (cf. Hoeve et al. 2008: 101f)
According to Dembo et al. preventive programs are especially important for youths from minorities and those living in inner cities. (cf. 2001: 3) Children and adolescents who are socially and financially deprived are more likely to engage in violent and criminal activities because they often lack the alternative. Adding to this, von Trotha remarks that unemployment is particularly high in the slums of bigger cities, affecting young people the most. Therefore, work is rather an exception than the rule for some of them. (cf. 1974: 67) In the case of these underprivileged youths, the parenting practices may be less of a factor for delinquency but rather the “inherited” social status and the (seemingly) impossibility to climb the social ladder. The task of state intervention should, therefore, be to improve the living conditions of poor families and help create possibilities to give these people an occupation. Hence, they would have the choice to decide against delinquency and choose legal activities, be it a job in social service or elsewhere. The example of minorities shows that often the dysfunctions in a family that might lead to delinquency do not stem from factors within the family only but are often influenced from the outside. This makes it unjust to blame the parents for disruptive behavior in their children when they do not even have the means to finance the education and provide necessities for their child. In the long run, the money spent by the government to improve the living conditions of the poorest would be saved by the decreased “cost to our society of crime, drug abuse, and mental illness”, which are all related to delinquency. (Dembo et al. 2001:3) Apart from these social factors, there are individual, or personal, factors that have an impact on children’s behavior. The next subchapter shall give an insight into these.
2.3. Individual Factors and Delinquency
In contrast to the thesis that inadequate parenting strategies cause delinquency, some researchers argue that in fact the children’s misbehavior and criminal conduct cause bad parenting and a weakening of the parent-child relationship. (cf. Siegel and Welsh 2011: 189) In this case, it is necessary to take a closer look at the individual factors of a child. These include genetic, physiological, neurological and neuropsychological, and psychosocial factors, which are often interrelated. (cf. Koot et al. 2008: 75) Latest research, however, suggests that the combination of social factors, as presented in the subchapter above, and individual factors produce a person’s behavioral pattern. Individual traits alone do not cause 9 criminality but rather make somebody more susceptible for delinquency. Nevertheless, individual factors can help find out why a child or adolescent shows a disruptive behavior. (cf. Siegel and Welsh 2011: 73)
So far, research has not identified specific genes that determine deviant behavior but it is assumed that interaction between genes has a certain influence on aggressive behavior and also affects the continuity of it. (cf. Koot et al. 2008: 76) Studies vary widely in terms of heritability, with some claiming that inherited genes amount for 7% only and others suggesting that they influence up to 85% of a person’s criminal behavior. (cf. Glenn et al. 2012: 75) As mentioned in an earlier subchapter, children also tend to imitate their parents’ behavior, therefore it is difficult to determine how much is biologically inherited and how much of the criminal conduct is influenced by environmental factors. In general, the impact of genetics in juvenile delinquency has often been left out and thus their influence is still the object of dispute.
In terms of physiological factors, low arousal theories have been most commonly examined. Studies suggest that low arousal is related to delinquency as it is a marker of lower fear and thus children will not fear punishment and consequences after they engage in criminal acts or violence. (cf. Koot et al. 2008: 76) Furthermore, scientists found out that sex hormones stand in relation to delinquency. Boys entering puberty showing increased disruptive behavior have shown a higher level of testosterone. The same is also true for girls. (cf. Siegel and Welsh 2011: 164) Koot et al. point out, however, that “the exact role of hormonal changes in the onset of disruptive behavior remains unclear, mainly because the role of hormonal changes have[sic!] never been investigated in longitudinal studies”. (cf. 2008: 78f)
Neurocognitive deficits are further factors that have been linked to antisocial behavior. Here, the focus lies on the IQ in relation to delinquency. The outcomes indicate that lower verbal intelligence was found in juvenile delinquents, thus, they lack communication skills and the ability to express themselves properly. (cf. Nigg and Huang-Pollock 2003: 232) Adding to this, Koot et al. state that executive function deficits have been widely associated with delinquency. These deficits concern problem solving, combining information, planning, and behavior inhibition. Neurocognitive deficits are inherited but also stem from prenatal and postnatal brain damage. As the authors further state, IQ and neurocognitive deficits are similar but yet distinguishable and mostly affect children who show disruptive behavior from an early age. (cf. 2008:81ff) 10
Finally, the psychosocial factors can give some indication of juvenile delinquency. In this case, the relationships to parents and peers are important; as mentioned above, weak parent-child relationship or rejection by peers have negative impacts on a child’s behavior, causing disruptive behavior that may eventually lead to delinquency. The emotional development plays another role; juvenile delinquents often show a difficult temperament which makes them more susceptible to the impact of weak parenting strategies and at the same time increase the risk of being influenced by their parents’ emotional development. (cf. Koot 2008: 85) Therefore, we can see that juvenile delinquency is mostly the result of several factors that influence a child and that these factors also correlate and impact each other.
2.4. Youth Gangs
“[I]t is only when youth are associated with 'trouble' that they become worthy of society’s doubtful attention – and there is no greater shorthand for this pejorative association between youth and trouble than 'the gang'.” (Brotherton 2015: 7f)
Juvenile delinquency is rarely a one-person phenomenon; most commonly troubled youths are part of a gang in which they engage in criminal activities with others. The gang signifies a replacement for the family for those who come from a troubled family or those who do not have a family at all. A gang provides young people with safety, respect and friendship, at the same time it gives them a role and an occupation. According to von Trotha juvenile gang delinquency is especially found where poverty, hunger, danger, sickness, and deracination belong to people’s daily routine. (cf. 1974: 2) In short, social injustices favor the increase of gangs as within the group and moreover, survival becomes much easier. As Brotherton states above, gangs are usually associated with trouble and therefore one of society’s fears. Instead of help and support for underprivileged children, governments try hard to eliminate gangs. This subchapter will give insight into the topic of youth gangs, dealing with issues such as gang structure, criminality and the culture of gangs. Although youth gangs appear in all social classes, I will only analyze gangs associated with the lower class.
Historically, youth gangs have existed since the early 14th and 15th century in Europe, especially in the Roman society in countries such as France and England. (cf. Brown et al. 2013: 1) Therefore, gangs are not an American invention and existed even before the
11 discovery of America in 1492. Brotherton remarks that the emergence of youth groups has been linked to the upcoming of under-classes, for instance in Britain after the industrialization and urbanization processes, but also recently in the 1980s, when the British “hooligan” was brought to society’s attention. (cf. 2015: 12) According to Brown et al. youth gangs in America appeared around the Civil War when capitalism expanded. Already in the early 19th century, however, Philadelphia was home to several gangs who walked around in groups and carved their names in the city’s walls. (cf. 2013: 2) Up to now, juvenile gangs and generally criminal groups are associated with the urban centers although “smaller cities have joined the ranks of New York City, New York, Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois, in having major and ongoing issues with youth gangs.” (Covey et al. 2006: 29) Brown et al. state that the increase of these gangs was linked to immigration and poverty; consequently Europeans brought the system of gangs to America. Among them were Irish people, Italians, and Jews, later also Germans and Scandinavians. (cf. 2013: 2)
In order to understand the nature of gangs, it is helpful to come up with a definition of youth gangs. Malcolm Klein (1971), who has written several books on gangs and criminology, suggests that a juvenile gang is
“…any denotable adolescent group of youngsters who (a) are generally perceived as a distinct aggregation by others in their neighborhood; (b) recognize themselves as denotable group (almost invariably with a group name); and (c) have been involved in a sufficient number of delinquent incidents to call forth a consistent negative response from neighborhood residents and/or enforcement agencies”. (cited in Covey et al. 2006: 5)
Thus, a youth gang is an outwardly fixed unit that shares certain features, e.g. a gang name, and engages in criminal activities causing disapproval and probably fears within their environment. Covey et al. add that youth gangs rarely specialize in certain crimes, e.g. drug trafficking, but rather commit several different yet minor crimes. (cf. 2006: 6) The definition by Klein is still one of the most accepted and often used, for instance in a recent survey by the National Gang Center, further stating that gangs include at least three members, usually ranging from age 12-20. (cf. Brown et al. 2013: 23)
The fact that youth gangs are a universal issue leads to the question why they form and why individuals join them. Covey et al. link the initial formation of street gangs to the social institutional level and the joining of the individual to his or her social psychological level. (cf. 2006: 156) Referring back to von Trotha (1974), socioeconomic status and social deprivation fuels the emergence of gangs, making it a matter of class. Brotherton adds race as a factor, 12 thus emphasizing also the social and cultural structure of neighborhood and community. (cf. 2015: 16f) According to Covey et al. members of a street gang usually belong to the same race and violence between gangs is mostly intra-ethnic. (cf. 2006: 220) The authors also state that some people are less integrated in society due to race or other discriminating factors and therefore lack social networks. Consequently, this makes gangs more attractive as “they provide an alternative to the increasingly unfamiliar and mainstream society”. (2006: 25) Thus, gangs unite people from the same or similar backgrounds and give them a sense of belonging hence making their popularity to some extent comprehensible.
As mentioned above, the underclass plays an important role in the analysis of youth gangs. Von Trotha highlights Cohen’s theory, which proposes that adolescents from lower classes have difficulties adapting to the standards and norms of the middle class which they are confronted with in kindergarten and schools and up to their later jobs. This results in problems with self-confidence and perception of one’s own status. (cf. 1974: 24) In a gang, however, there are different rules and norms; it is probably easier for an adolescent to gain respect but also admiration and the feeling of power over others. Brotherton further mentions the increased feeling of masculinity that is so often evident in young male group members. (cf. 2015: 17) Obviously, there are also girl gangs or mixed-gender gangs; however, this thesis focuses on male youth gangs only. The belonging to a gang thus creates a feeling of pride, a feeling that many underclass youths struggle to get as they often lack academic success or the financial means to buy themselves expensive goods. In addition, membership in a gang helps them find and develop their own identity.
An important factor in delinquency and the emergence of gangs is the aforementioned neighborhood which needs to be highlighted in this paragraph. Chaskin suggests that both problem and solution to the issue of youth gangs lies mainly within the community, and criticizes that delinquency and gangs are presented as a phenomenon attributed to cultural and individual factors only. He states that a study demonstrated that criminal behavior of adolescents was linked to “neighborhood poverty, population mobility, physical deterioration, and minority (black and foreign-born) status”. (2010: 4) Loeber et al. list the neighborhood as risk factors in specific contexts, implying that certain neighborhoods do have a negative influence on a child’s tendency towards delinquency. (cf. 2008:140) Corresponding to this is von Trotha’s thesis, proposing that reduced predictability of acting (“reduzierte Voraussehbarkeit des Handelns”) is a basic condition of socialization in ghettos. Since employment and health belong to unpredictability in poorer quarters, the future is uncertain
13 for most of the people living there and the threat to their material livelihood consequently leads many of them to organize themselves in gangs and commit delinquent acts. (cf. 1974: 63ff) It is arguable that the neighborhood’s influence on adolescents and children varies but in some cases it certainly is an increased risk factor for criminality and gang activity.
Due to the different factors, there are various types of youth gangs. Cloward and Ohlin (1960) distinguish between three different street gangs. These are the criminal gang, which focuses on organized crime such as theft to gain material, power and prestige; the conflict gang, which engages in violence and fighting with enemy gangs; and lastly the retreatist gang, whose members usually engage in criminal activities such as prostitution and drug dealing to finance their own addictions. (as cited in Flowers 1990: 107) It has to be added, that the boundaries between the three groups are blurry as some gangs take on characteristics of two or all three types of gangs. Moreover, violence has increased over the past decades. According to Covey et al. the rumbles of the 1950s and 1960s were a start to open violence, followed by drive-by shootings and armed raids in the 1980s and 1990s. (cf. 2006: 30) Brown et al. draw on Reiner’s suggestion to distinguish between gang-related crimes and gang-motivated crimes. The former include all crimes related to one of the members of a gang, be it as a victim or as a criminal; the latter concern criminal activities ordered by the gang leader or several members of the gang, among these are “expressive actions” that should gain the gang respect and show the members’ fearlessness. (cf. 2013: 29f)
Another typology by Yablonsky (1959) proposes that gangs are something in between mobs and groups. He defines a mob as a temporary and not organized unit of several people without a clear goal. A group, on the other hand, is well-organized, members know their roles and everybody shares a common identity. In contrast to a mob, groups are permanent. Finally, gangs share characteristics with both the mob and the group. Although not permanent, they have fixed members which can, however, increase in numbers and variable leaders. Gangs are not as socially organized as often expected. (as cited in Covey et al. 2006: 8) It is, therefore, arguable that many juvenile street gangs emerge out of opportunistic reasons but only a limited amount of them will eventually establish themselves. Forming a gang is one thing, but being “successful” and claiming an own territory etc. is difficult and needs a lot of toughness, strength, and often tools in form of weapons. Furthermore gang fights and other criminal acts often cause wounds and injuries if not fatalities among the members. And finally, as gang activities are mostly illegal, gangs and groups are permanently under police observation and
14 thus the members risk getting caught, which might eventually lead to the (temporary or permanent) dissolution of a gang.
The role of the police is tricky when it comes to sanctioning and intervention of juvenile gang activities. On the one hand, most of the children and adolescents in a group are still under guardianship of their parents; on the other hand, the police often receive little or no respect from gangs at all. Von Trotha remarks that there is a lot of resentment of the people living in slums, where gangs are usually prevalent, towards the police as they believe that the police simply act out of caprice and are generally brutal. In addition, the police are perceived as representatives of middle-class institutions which leads to further animosities among the underprivileged inhabitants of the seedy quarters. (cf. 1974: 111) Thus, not only gangs but also the people living in certain “risk” areas avoid the police and any cooperation with them. Furthermore, researchers have argued that the police trigger a moral panic over youth gangs by claiming that violence is increasing and that gangs are a social threat to neighborhoods. Their aim is to gain more financial support and to provoke stricter laws. (cf. Krinsky 2008:183)
Nevertheless, many juvenile street gangs pose a threat to others and themselves as well. Intervention, Prevention, and Suppression are the common strategies in a fight against juvenile delinquency and organized gang activity. According to Hewitt et al. a third of national law enforcement agencies are trained and ordered to battle delinquent gangs. Their duties include “surveillance, arrest, and prosecution of gang members” by making use of the RICO (Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act from 1970, which was originally used to combat the Mafia. Nowadays, this law is applied to youths, making it easier for the police to arrest gang members as well as gang leaders. As the authors further state, however, suppression tactics alone often do not reduce the problem of gangs; on the contrary, they sometimes even cause further violence. Hewitt et al. therefore suggest that suppression strategies in combination with prevention programs are a better solution as they also provide alternatives for the troubled youth and will gradually help to diminish youth gangs. (cf. 2011: 364ff)
2.5. Juvenile Delinquency in Film
The “bad boy” is one of cinema’s most frequent roles, usually depicted in the form of a romanticized anti-hero. The viewer accompanies him on his way to his self-discovery, a
15 path full of struggle, anger, pain and sometimes final reformation. In Hollywood, we often encounter the bad boy in the character of the juvenile delinquent, who is, as Pomerance and Gateward state, “perhaps the ubiquitous archetype in the construction of cinematic boys”. (2005: 10) From the 1930s onwards, myriad films about juvenile delinquency and youth gone wild have been produced, fascinating one generation to the next. The “Dead End Kids” in films such as Dead End (1937) or Crime School (1938) as well as actor Mickey Rooney, e.g. in Boys Town (1938), mark the first generation of young Hollywood actors who represent the juvenile criminal. James Dean famously depicted the middle-class delinquent in Rebel without a Cause (1955) in the 1950s and only a few years later West Side Story (1961) portrayed juvenile gang fights. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Matt Dillon became the archetypal juvenile delinquent, starring in films like Over the Edge (1979), Rumble Fish (1983), The Outsiders (1983) and Drugstore Cowboy (1989). African-American youth gained popularity in the 1990s, representing racial problems, for instance, Boyz in the Hood (1991). The 2000s witnessed a shift towards more female delinquency and girl rebels as depicted in Thirteen (2003), Havoc (2005), Springbreakers (2012) or The Bling Ring (2013).
Shary argues that the domination of male teenagers and children in films about juvenile delinquency is “due to how 'JD' films depict the ripe conflict of boys becoming men within a supposedly progressing society”. (2005: 21) Therefore, it is arguable that these films are consistently bound to the process of coming-of-age and finding one’s place in society. The mischievous boy has always been linked to cinematic representation; his first appearance can be drawn back to the Lumières’ L´Arroseur arrosé in 1896, whose English title, The Bad Boy and the Gardener, already implies the notion of the bad boy. (cf. Pomerance and Gateward 2005: 4) According to Shary, this fascination with the bad boy or the juvenile delinquent is built upon a masculine mythology. (cf. 2005: 21) For instance, the 1980s promoted the image of the tough guy, with emphasis on the fit body. While white male bodybuilders gained success as action heroes, the importance of the built muscular body also reached the delinquency films of that time. (cf. Tasker 1993: 73) Tasker points to the fact that the insistent imagery of the strong male serves typically masculine stereotypes and thus further nurtures gender differences. (cf. 1993: 77)
Hollywood’s portrayal of the juvenile delinquent has been controversially discussed. Snyder suggests that 'JD' films “have become part of American culture and are at once a representation of and possible etiologic factor in causing delinquency.” (1995: 53) This seems plausible since actors such as James Dean became teen idols and evoked the wish for
16 emulation among many young viewers. His lifestyle, tragic death, and rise to an icon for generations have only furthered the fascination for him. Indeed, the fact that several adolescents admire James Dean or other 'JD' actors such as Matt Dillon or Sean Penn does not automatically causes adolescents to become criminals themselves but nevertheless, Hollywood’s portrayal of delinquency has not always been too morally correct. Shary highlights the “more sensitive and personal portraits of troubled youth”, causing the viewers to sympathize with the character and even his or her actions. (2005: 24) Snyder, who did comprehensive clinical research on the effect of 'JD' films, argues that the easy access to television and video cassettes increases the risk of observational learning, i.e. the above- mentioned mimicry of teenagers modeled on their idols. He compares the impact of violent pornography to the frequent exposure of teenage crime movies. While the one evidentially builds up tendencies of males to behave aggressively towards women, the other shows increased potential to negatively influence adolescents’ behavior. For this phenomenon Snyder uses the term 'desensitization', i.e. the growing acceptance of aggressive behavior. (1995: 53f)
In Hollywood’s 'JD' films the image of the hoodlum has often been romanticized, implying that rebellion and crime is idealistic and adventurous rather than morally reprehensible. (cf. Shary 2005: 30) In addition, most films do not condemn the antisocial behavior of the youths but in fact, they celebrate rebellion and the hedonistic yet harmful lifestyle of aggressive adolescents. (cf. Shary 2002: 83) Snyder comes to the conclusion that,
“American culture is surprisingly devoid of a clearly enforced code of conduct, and is lax and inconsistent in enforcing the few standards that do exist. Such broad socialization may provide little guidance and structure for adolescents, particularly impulsive, pleasure-seeking delinquent youth. There may be very little in the socialization environment of adolescents to prevent them from being influenced, at least to some degree, by contemporary movies dealing with themes of adolescence.” (1995: 64)
Here, films create ideals, impacting the youth to a dangerous degree and conveying the message that rebellion against parents, social institutions, and the law is a normal process of growing up.
Additionally, the portrayal of gender in 'JD' films has been criticized. As mentioned above, the male delinquent was prevalent up until the late 20th century. He was associated with stereotypical male attributes such as strength, fearlessness, and roughness. Shary remarks that the distinction between “good” and “bad” was usually ascribed to female and male 17 respectively, with the girl as reformer for the delinquent boy, helping him to salvation from his fate as a bad boy. (cf. 2005: 24) Thus, girls were usually depicted as innocent, shy but good at heart, who could not resist the tough guy and did their best to tame and change him for the better. Hollywood films have thus strengthened established gender stereotypes with males in the active roles, and females as passive characters. From this point of view, it is interesting that most literature on cinema and gender representation focuses on girls and women while male power has been rarely discussed, and if, the emphasis was put on grown- up males only. (cf. Pomerance and Gateward 2005: 1)
Finally, violence and language have become more and more aggressive over the past centuries. While delinquents in the earlier films of the 1930s and 1940s had usually been redeemed in the end, the Second World War changed the way they were portrayed. From then on emphasis was put on vile behavior and brutality. As Shary points out, this was due to Hollywood’s increased suspicion of young males that started in the post-war era. He further remarks that the fascination with teenage delinquency was growing and reached a peak in the 1980s when the film industry created ever more subgenres of juvenile delinquency, including horror or slasher movies or sex comedies. However, this was brought to an abrupt change as the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado decreased Hollywood’s interest in the randomly brutal teenager. (cf. 2005: 22f) Political events or tragedies such as the mentioned shooting spree in Colorado have apparently been an influence on the film industry as the representation of society is strongly connected to the political climate of the time. It is, therefore, important to analyze films within the historical and political context of their time of creation.
3. Theoretical Background II: Dysfunctional Families
“Because each family is unique, its members respond to family troubles in unique ways. In another sense, however, family problems are institutional, and therefore, affect us all.” (Coleman and Cressey 1980: 136)
3.1 Dysfunctional Families and the Problem of Definition
A family can be dysfunctional in numerous different ways. For the analysis and interpretation of the concept of dysfunctional family patterns in this thesis, however, it is necessary to first provide a framework giving information on historical aspects and discussing 18 the analytical problems that occur when defining what characterizes a family as dysfunctional. The Eighth Edition of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary describes the adjective 'dysfunctional' as “not working normally or properly”. (Hornby 2010) It is to be asked, though, what can be considered normal and what cannot in terms of family and relationships within the individual members. Etymologically, the term 'dysfunctional' is a hybrid word, consisting of the Greek suffix “dys-“, meaning “bad”, and the latin word “function”, meaning “execute”. Thus, dysfunction relates to tasks being badly executed, which brings us closer to defining a dysfunctional family: a family in which every-day duties such as child-raising and caring are performed in a rather bad way. Or, as Jamiolkowski puts it, “a dysfunctional family is one that fails to meet the basic needs of one or more of its members.” (1998: 2) According to the psychologist Abraham Maslow these basic needs include survival, safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, growth, and development of skills for independent living. (cf. Jamiolkowski 1998:2)
In Kaslow’s Handbook of Relational and Dysfunctional Family Patterns three main aspects are important: the focus on child and adolescent, the focus on couples, and the focus on family. (cf. Kaslow 1996) In this thesis, the focus shall be put on the adolescent and the family. For a long time, the family has been considered as the private sphere, a place that was not to be intervened in. However, as society - being the public sphere - and family are affecting each other and the well-being of the family is seen as a requirement for the well- being of society, state intervention has become a major factor in regulating and/or punishing 'malfunctioning' families. (cf. Saraga 1993: 1) It is arguable, that the state of society too, is influencing family life and hence problems within the families stem from the illnesses of the society they belong to. Saraga debates that it is often difficult to locate the blame for poverty and homelessness within the family only. (cf. 1993: 3) Therefore, environmental influence cannot and must not be neglected when analyzing dysfunctional family patterns and instable relationships among the members of a family.
In order to further explore the public-private conflict, it is essential to define the duties of a family. Murdoch states that a nuclear family, consisting of parents and children has four fundamental functions – “the sexual, the economic, the reproductive, and the educational. Without provision for the first and third, society would become extinct; for the second, life itself would cease; for the fourth, culture would come to an end.” (cited in Young 1964: 103) Again, it becomes obvious that family and society are strongly intertwined and that each and every family holds not only the responsibility for itself, but for the community as well. On the
19 other hand, thus, the state’s task should not only be to discipline dysfunctional families but much more to provide adequate care and help as well.
As mentioned above, the dysfunctions of a family can be multifaceted. They range from verbal abuse, physical abuse, and neglect to intra-family sexual abuse. Conduct disorders, adolescent depression, substance abuse, and eating disorders are further malfunctions that may negatively influence the family. Quite different but no less troubling are overprotection, religious fanaticism, perfectionism, and many more. An ongoing conflict within two members of the family has an impact on the whole state of a family, as troubles are most likely to affect each and everyone belonging to the household on a daily basis. The same may also be true for individual family members if the effects start concerning every member of the family. This, for instance, can be seen in alcoholism and the subsequent co-dependency of the rest of the family. The constellation of a family is also a factor as strong sibling relationships may prevent physical or verbal abuse by the father whereas a single child might have less support against a violent parent. The constellation of a family can also be the factor for a malfunction, considering occurrences such as the loss of one or even both parents leaving the rest of the family in a completely new circumstance, or the loss of a child causing depression among mother, father, and siblings. As Jamiolkowski remarks, dysfunctional families usually stick together in order not to admit their troubles to outsiders, which in a way binds them together. (cf. 1998: 2f) Hence, the worst relationships are often those that are kept together by the factors of fear and shame.
In historical terms, the traditional family has undergone a change since the Industrial Revolution, characterized by an increase in divorces and illegitimate births, but also by challenging traditional gender roles. Women have become part of the workforce and consequently face more than the traditional tasks at home and in the household. Moreover, the extended family has gradually been replaced by the nuclear family, and parents were suddenly left alone with all the work and responsibilities that had formerly been shared with relatives. (cf. Young 1964: 104) The rapid social changes are challenging not only traditional values but the concept of the family as a whole, with reformers calling for sexual freedom as well as sexual equality and arguing that the pursuit of happiness is a family’s highest goal to achieve. (cf. Cressey and Coleman 1980: 141f) Albeit the fact that people warn against a decay of the family, the family does not disappear at all. Coleman and Cressey point to the fact that marriage is still common and people who divorce choose to marry again without giving any evidence that families nowadays are less happy than in previous centuries. (cf. 1980: 119)
20
It is arguable that there have always been dysfunctional families, however, the state only started to interfere when social reforms came into being in the late 19th century. Thus, with increasing social reforms, violence against children had been “discovered” at the turn of the 20th century, which also called Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children into life. (cf. Saraga 1993: 49) As Saraga remarks, child abuse seemingly vanished as a social problem and was replaced by neglect or juvenile delinquency, two issues emerging after the Second World War. (cf. 1993: 49) Only in the 1960s did a symposium on the battered child call widespread attention to the problem of abuse which has been thoroughly researched and discussed ever since. (cf. Kalisch 1978: xv) Interestingly, child abuse seemed to have been much more common in the past as physical punishment was considered significant for the learning process of a child. Coleman and Cressey claim that physical violence toward children has actually decreased since parents nowadays are more aware of the negative effects. (cf. 1980: 132) Nevertheless, malfunctioning families are no exception and the ways of child mistreatment are becoming more and more varied.
A lot of research has been carried out in order to determine whether dysfunctions in families and abuse stand in relation to economic status classes but findings have usually shown that dysfunctional families are evident in all kind of social classes. A study by David Gil has proven, however, that children from broken homes are more likely to be victims of abuse and that a lower social class is, in fact, an increasing factor for domestic violence. (In Coleman and Cressey 1980: 133) It is easy to argue now that families from a poor socioeconomic background with little education and poor housing fit in the stereotypical picture of a broken home, yet Young argues that parental misfortune cannot be equated with intentional parental neglect. (cf. 1964: 70) According to social psychologists, the most likely factor for parents to beat or mistreat their children in any way is their own experience of being abused as a child. (Coleman and Cressey 1980: 133) Personal traumata that have not been treated adequately will always pose a risk for parents when they themselves have children as they may not be able to control their emotions. Another factor that seemingly influences family patterns is urbanity. Young provides two possible explanations for this phenomenon: first, the impersonality and anonymity of a large urban center allows a violent behavior more than a small town or country where neighbors usually know each other, and secondly, domestic violence is less likely to be discovered in a largely populated city and can, therefore, become more severe before it attracts attention. (cf. 1964: 59)
21
Concentrating on child abuse within dysfunctional families, it is crucial to define the concept of child abuse. Saraga states that the term is vague, cannot be measured and moreover lacks a widely accepted definition. (cf. 1993: 53) There is no unambiguous definition as there are numerous ways of abuse. Categorizing abuse, we usually find four sections: neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Some academics, however, have taken on a wider perspective on child abuse which includes not only the family but environmental aspects such as poverty, illness, poor education, racism, sexism, homophobia, and more. (Saraga 1993: 54) The problem we face is that there is no clear line between abuse and “common” punishment. Coleman and Cressey argue that in the 1970s more than 90% of all Americans spanked their children from time to time, yet not 90% of all American parents were abusing their children. (cf. 1980: 132) In the past years, though, awareness was raised towards a less violent form of child raising as the occasional slap in the face is said to already have a negative impact on the children. Nevertheless, smacking one’s child is not illegal in the United States or in Great Britain down to the present day, which further challenges the boundaries between “normal” punishment and abuse. As Saraga points out “the context and meaning of parental behavior; the intentions of the adult; the child’s wishes; the relationship between child and adult; family and cultural norms; the age of the child; the gender of the child and of the adult” are circumstances that always need to be considered when judging whether an activity is abusive or still “good care”. (Saraga 1993: 57) In comparison to Saraga’s ideas for definition, Zuravin suggests the following recommendations for defining maltreatment: Consequence of behavior; type of behavior; Perpetrator; chronicity; perpetrator intent to harm/culpability for harm; and age of the child. (cf. 1991: 123f) Thus, the definition of abuse is problematic, also because personal judgment plays a significant role and as long as every psychologist recommends their own explications, there cannot and will not be standardized definitions that would be helpful to develop a knowledge base on child mistreatment.
3.2 Physical Abuse, Neglect, and Alcoholism in the Family
As mentioned in the previous chapter, child abuse has been discerned as an actual social problem only from the 1960s onwards but was not a very well researched issue back then causing the public to wonder how common this social threat occurred in families and especially which type of family was to be associated with this mistreatment of children. (cf. Saraga 1993: 60) Generally speaking, most parents have the best intentions when founding a
22 family, hoping to lead a happy, fulfilling life and providing their children with everything they need to grow up in a safe and healthy surrounding. Nevertheless, some families break down. As Jamiolkowski puts it, “good intentions can turn into fanaticism, perfectionism, overprotection, or emotional abuse” while unsatisfied needs and emotions can lead to temper that erupts in physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect. (1998: 8) The question, however, is, if some families are more at a risk of breaking down than others, and if so, which kinds of families are affected. At the beginning, research on child abuse depended on real cases, collected by welfare agencies or hospitals for the child abuse registers. As Saraga points out, though, these samples are not only selective but also subjective in how the cases are described and whether they were biased in terms of class and race. (cf. 1993: 60)
In order to find out more about child mistreatment, researchers have carried out several different types of studies. Egeland, for instance, highlights the “at-risk approach”, which investigated mothers and their infants over an interval of several years. The first group consisted of mothers who were at risk for reasons such as young age, unplanned pregnancy, single mother, no high school degree. The members of the second group, being the control group, showed no factors of risk. The children were assessed until the age of 13-15, starting with prenatal testing. For this purpose, the researchers conducted interviews with the children, their mothers as well as their teachers and videotaped the children during different social activities and in school. Even within the first 12 months the study showed that almost half of the children of the at-risk group were more anxious; during school-time, half of the at-risk children needed special-education; and at the age of 13 about 15% had been either physically or sexually abused or neglected. Thus, the study confirmed that families at risk are more likely to become dysfunctional. Additionally, all of the affected children showed some negative effects due to their mistreatment, e.g. doing poorly in school or lacking social skills. (cf. 1991: 33ff)
Carrying out surveys has become an alternative approach to research mistreatment within the family; the questions however are not only addressed to parents, asking about their attitudes in punishing or controlling the children, but also approaches the victims directly by asking about childhood experiences etc. (Saraga 1993: 60) Anonymity is obvious, yet many sufferers deny or suppress negative memories of their childhood that are often caused by shame and a feeling of failure. The same, of course, is true for abusive parents. Still, surveys can be helpful in showing behavior and appraisal towards child rearing, which may also add to a common accordance with defining child abuse. A frequent form of research on physical
23 abuse includes surveys or interviews as well as cognitive testing of the child and observations, similar to the above-mentioned “at-risk approach” by Egeland and colleagues or the Lehigh Longitudinal Study by Herrenkohl et al. (cf. Egolf et al. 1991: 61)
Saraga points to the fact that while physical abuse is “linked to class factors, particularly poverty […] no independent link to 'race' or 'culture' has been found.”(1993: 63) Although factors of risk and socioeconomic background play a major role, the question remains which kinds of people violently mistreat their own children. As a consequence, the psychology of the individual has grown important for the study of child abuse. Since typologies have not been successful in creating a consistent pattern, researchers started to focus on life experiences of abusive parents. The findings revealed that many of the parents had in fact been abused as children themselves, bringing about the widely accepted idea of the 'intergenerational transmission' of abuse. However, not all of them grow up to become abusers as a study by Herrenkohl et al. revealed that 'intergenerational transmission' of abuse is “by no means…and unvarying pattern” (cited in Saraga 1993: 65) Childhood experiences are thus influencing peoples’ behavior as adults and parents but need not be a determining factor for how they interact with their children.
An alternative perspective suggests focusing on the family rather than on the individual members, thus drawing attention to events within the family, looking into aspects such as communication, interaction and the roles each member plays within the system. (cf. Saraga 1993: 66) Jamiolkowski names the aggressor, addict, abuser, or neglecter in opposition to the victim(s) as well as the codependent(s) as typical roles. The codependent tries to defend the aggressor by acting normally to the outside world. This role is often taken by the mother, making excuses for her husband and “while trying to help, actually enables the dysfunction to continue”. (1998: 3) Thus, Dale argues that child abuse within the family is linked to a triangular relationship between the perpetrator, the victim and the codependent. (cited in Saraga 1993:66) Williams (1996) adds even further variations to the individual roles of the family members which will be discussed further down in this subchapter.
Drawing on to Saraga’s point that physical abuse is considered as a crime linked to poverty, it is necessary to keep in mind that poverty does not cause abuse and that abuse is also happening in families from a higher socioeconomic background. She objects to the general idea that people from lower classes hit their children due to increased stress factors and frustration with the economic situation and argues that stress is dealt with differently by different people and that stress also occurs within affluent and middle-class families. (1993: 24
68) It is also interesting to note, that studies, for instance by Gil, have shown that children were more often abused by their mothers. This, however, must be seen in relation to the fact that single mothers are by far more common than single fathers. (cf. Coleman and Cressey 1980: 133) In relation, though, men are more likely to take the role of the aggressor and abuser.
Finally, we need to consider why children are so frequently the victim of physical abuse. Indeed, husband-wife violence is another common form of mistreatment, be it the husband or the wife who works as an aggressor against his or her partner. Here, Saraga remarks that “violence towards children is socially legitimated” as children are 'belongings' of their parents and are hence object to their parents’ methods of child rearing. (1993: 69) Children are usually the weakest members of a family and also the least likely to hit back, obviously depending on their age. Younger children often cannot understand why they are being beaten by a member of their family but since they do not know any better they might accept the physical violence as 'normal' punishment.
A further dimension of child mistreatment is neglect. According to Palusci, “it is the most common form of child maltreatment, affecting 60% or more of children reported annually to Child Protective Services.” (2011: 7) The child welfare, belonging to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines neglect as a parent’s or other person’s omission to care adequately for a child including the supply of clothes, food, medical care and shelter to guarantee the child’s well-being and safety. (cf. childwelfare.gov) Thus, neglected children often wear clothes that are torn and stained or inadequate for their age; they do not attend school regularly, are frequently sick and also malnourished. Opposed to children that suffer from physical abuse neglected children are more likely to be recognized as such as their outer appearance and the lack of hygiene reveal their inadequate treatment rather fast. In addition to this physical form of neglect, psychologists also distinguish between psychological neglect and educational neglect, the former as a form of emotional mistreatment and the latter as a lack of educational resources. (cf. Palusci 2011: 7) These two forms of neglect, however, are less likely to be detected by a child’s environment.
Young remarks that the majority of parents who neglect their children do not abuse or hurt them and are also willing to accept help from outside (cf. 1964: 28) It may be argued thus, that parents who neglect their children are rather over-challenged and simply cannot cope with the fact that they have to care not only for themselves but their offspring as well. Jenny points out that mothers of neglected children have frequently shown symptoms of 25 depression, discontent with their own lives and often lack a properly functioning socio- environment. (cf. 2011:30) She highlights the fact that research on child neglect mainly focuses on mothers whereas the role of the father has often been given less consideration. While studies have shown that children profit from positive relationships with their fathers, the missing of a father or father figure does not necessarily lead to a feeling of neglect. However, the lack of a positive relationship with the father can be a contributor to neglect. (cf. Jenny 2011: 30)
Referring back to the change of the structure of the family since the Industrial Revolution, it is to say that the family has become a smaller and thus more private unit. As the term nuclear family suggests, only the core of a family is included and hence mother and father are left alone with the raising and educating of their children. This privacy also complicates the interference of relatives such as grandparents. As Young remarks “the interfering mother-in-law is in our culture a subject for wry humor with the implication that the interference is both unwanted and unneeded.” (1964: 105f) As Coleman and Cressey point out, weaknesses of the nuclear family need to be strengthened, for instance by better preparation such as marriage counseling, easier divorces and also expanding kinship networks as supportive factors for families. (cf. 1980: 136ff) However, in times of globalization, it is increasingly problematic to retain and maintain kinship relationships as people move more often and also move further away. As a consequence, children grow up without really knowing their grandparents and parents lack the supportive help from their own families, being completely reliable on themselves. This problem even worsens in the case of single- parent families. Jenny adds that social isolation has been discovered as a contributory factor for neglect, as studies found out that maltreating parents were usually less integrated in the community and did not have any relationships with their neighbors. (cf. 2011: 31)
Taking a look at the socioeconomic factor, like physical abuse, child neglect is associated with poverty but as Palusci points out “poor families are not necessarily neglectful.” (2011: 7) Poverty is indeed a threat to health and development of any child as living in poverty can mean the exposure to hunger, the lack of safety or adequate shelter and missing possibilities of education. (cf. Jenny 2011: 32) Thus, poor families face more difficulties providing their children with sufficient supplies, which also include health insurance and financial support e.g. in terms of education. Nevertheless, both Young and Jenny point out that neglect is certainly not limited to low-income families and also affects families with a better financial background. (cf. Young 1964: 70) (cf. Jenny 2011: 32)
26
Lastly, this subchapter deals with substance abuse, a further aspect of a dysfunctional family pattern. Reiter states that a prominent notion in connection with substance abuse is addiction and suggests the definition used by The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM): Addiction is “a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.” They further proclaim that addiction causes problems in a person’s biological, psychological, social and spiritual domain promoting the following five characteristics for addicts: a) inability to consistently abstain; b) impairment in behavioral control; c) craving; or increased “hunger” for drugs or rewarding experiences; d) diminished recognition of significant problems with one’s behaviors and intrapersonal relationships; and e) a dysfunctional emotional response. (ASAM, 2014, cited in Reiter 2015: 5) Williams adds that “the addiction eventually becomes the primary emotional relationship; […] as the addiction progresses, the addict’s compulsive dishonesty leads him or her to mistrust others and he or she becomes more isolated. (1996: 451f) The addict’s replacement of social relationships with the drug has severe effects on families and the relations and connections between the members which I will now examine. While substance abuse includes all kinds of drugs, I will focus on alcoholism.
Huff points out that the cause for alcoholism is still obscure but research suggests about 60% genetic factors and 40% socio-cultural and environmental factors as the sources for substance abuse. However, there are several links between alcoholism and family, for instance, the increased risk for children of alcoholic parents to later become alcohol addicts themselves and/or adopting their parents’ chaotic and disciplinary parenting methods. (cf. Huff 2009: 4f) As Williams remarks, alcoholism is a family-centered disorder, especially affecting the alcoholic’s family members and thus challenging these to protect and accommodate the person suffering from alcohol abuse. (cf. 1996: 452) In every family the climate is important: if the members of a family do not communicate and mutually support each other and if family roles are reversed (e.g. children take on parenting) the family takes on a dysfunctional pattern. (cf. Gruber and Taylor 2009: 6) Especially the roles of each member in a family become interesting as dysfunctions such as alcohol abuse change or reverse these. Drawing on to Jamiolkowski’s trio of aggressor, victim, and codependent, Williams suggests even more roles within a family with an addict. The codependent is named “chief enabler” whereas the children take on roles such as the “family hero”, the “family 27 scapegoat”, or the “lost child”. The chief enabler, usually the wife or non-married partner of the addict, tries to enable a normal life for the alcoholic, whereas the family hero is often represented by the eldest child, adopting the parent’s tasks of caring for his or her siblings and managing the household as a whole. In order to cope with the situation, children become either rebellious (scapegoat) or emotionally and socially isolated (lost child), or adopt other characteristics. (cf. 1996: 452f) Consequently, substance abuse is a threat to the whole family which will gradually develop its own dynamics.
It should be noted, however, that alcohol abuse is not only causing a dysfunctional family pattern but can also be caused by a disrupted family. Financial problems, the loss of a family member or the general loss of control may influence people to drain their sorrows in alcohol. Nevertheless, occasional drinking is not substance abuse, but can already have impacts on the family. Huff notes that alcoholism is related to marital stress, separation, and divorce and can be both potential consequence and predictor of a failed marriage. (cf. 2009: 7) The impact of parental substance abuse is especially significant for children and their psychological development. Consequences are weak performances in school, eating disorders or antisocial behavior like compulsive disorder and delinquency; other children mature early and start being especially concerned with taking care of the family, drawing on the example of the different roles presented above. (cf. Williams 1996: 454)
In such families, the focus of attention usually shifts from children to the alcoholic, which in some circumstances may cause a feeling of neglect among the children. Young refers to studies proving that among the parents of neglected children, the majority is drinking. (cf. 1964: 71) It is further interesting to find out in how far alcoholism and physical abuse are connected; in this case studies have shown inconsistent results. Hiller-Sturmhofel and Widom present studies that lead to the assumption that parents suffering from alcohol abuse have more potential to physically mistreat their children but they also argue that “further research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn about the extent and nature of the connection between parental alcohol abuse and subsequent child abuse”. (2001: 53) Miller and colleagues (1997) developed three theories that imply a link between alcoholism and physical abuse; they are 'the cognitive disorganization' proposing that misinterpretation within a family’s communication leads to violence; the 'deviance disavowal hypothesis' arguing that the addict blames his or her aggressive behavior on the alcohol and thus takes no responsibility for his or her actions; and lastly the 'disinhibition hypothesis' suggesting decreased control of the brain over social behaviors due to alcoholism. (cited in Widom and
28
Sturmhöfel 2001: 53) This potential interconnectedness of alcoholism, physical abuse, and neglect shows that some families deal with more than one dysfunction and that these dysfunctions are often related to each other.
3.3 The Adolescent’s Response: Conduct Disorders and Rebellion
Children from dysfunctional families have grown up under precarious circumstances, causing disruptions in their psychological development. It is thus not surprising that a number of these children become attributed with a deviant behavior as they grow older. These so- called Disruptive Behavior Disorders include, among others, conduct disorders, delinquency, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and substance abuse problems. (cf. Alexander and Pugh 1996: 210) Again, it is to be noted that not all children from dysfunctional families develop a behavior disorder and not all children who behave in a deviant way come from a dysfunctional family. Nevertheless, a disruptive behavior disorder can increase a family’s instability, causing a dysfunction. The focal point in this subchapter will be set on conduct disorders.
Conduct disorders can be generated by several different factors including social, genetic and (neuro-) psychological influences. For the purpose of this thesis, I will examine social factors and their impact on children, focusing on the role of the family and peers. Maughan states that “family poverty and disadvantage, large family size, parental psychopathology, harsh and inept parenting, conflicted relationships and family breakdown have since shown robust links with conduct disorder.” (2001: 177) The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) lists 15 criteria for Conduct Disorders, to which the following belong:
1. Often bullies, threatens, or intimidates others. 2. Often initiates physical fights. 3. Has used a weapon that can cause serious physical harm to others (e.g., a bat, brick, broken bottle, knife, gun). […] 6. Has stolen while confronting a victim (e.g., mugging, purse snatching, extortion, armed robbery). […] 10. Has broken into someone else’s house, building, or car. 29
[…] 13. Often stays out at night despite parental prohibitions, beginning before age 13 years. 14. Has run away from home overnight at least twice while living in parental or parental surrogate home (or once without returning for a lengthy period). 15. Is often truant from school, beginning before age 13 years. (cited in Alexander and Pugh 1996: 212)
Studies have tried to examine the relationship between parenting styles and conduct disorders; the findings suggest three factors that negatively affect a child’s behavior: harsh punishment including physical abuse; faulty parent-child relationships, and poor care. (cf. Maughan 2001: 179) Alexander and Pugh summarize that critical parenting is crucial in children’s development of conduct disorders and that these behavioral issues represent “a relational, or systemic, problem rather than a singular 'underlying dysfunction' in the child”. (1996: 216f) The authors further distinguish between early- and late-onset Conduct Disorder, with the difference that adolescents affected by late-onset CD have not always been exposed to a troubling environment but rather experience disruptions in family functioning at a later age, as for instance divorce or the loss of a family member. (cf. 1996: 219)
Additionally, the relationship and interaction between the parents have an influence on the child’s behavior with studies proving that marital discord is linked to aggressive behavior and conduct problems. Especially male children from divorced families are likely to develop conduct disorders; this relates to general post-divorce effects such as emotional pain and decrease in academic achievement.(cf. Maughan 2001: 183) For some children, conduct disorders seem to be the only way to cope with the distress and troubles of a broken home. As a consequence, these children further negatively affect the environment, including peers and the already instable family, hence contributing to further dilemma. (cf. Alexander and Pugh 1996: 217) It would be interesting to examine the role of siblings in conduct disorders; however, Dishion et al. remark that “this area of research […] is relatively new and undeveloped”. They state that siblings are usually similar in behavior but studies to show how siblings influence each other in conduct are yet to come. (2001: 279) The following subchapter will nevertheless try to explain sibling relations in a more detailed way.
While conduct disorders are affected by family and equally affect the family, it is also worth looking into the contribution of peers. Models of conduct disorders suggest that the deviant, aggressive adolescent is rejected by peers and thus reinforced in his behavior from as early as preschool age. (cf. Dishion et al. 2001: 273) Alexander and Pugh highlight that poor 30 peer relations increase a child’s risk for antisocial behavior and negative consequences in general. (cf. 1996: 211) On the other hand, antisocial children tend to seek and find friends that are similar in their behavior, thus experiencing the feeling to be 'normal' among their clique. (cf. Dishion et al. 2001: 274) Within such a clique, however, it is also likely that friends negatively influence each other, stimulating themselves to commit little acts of crime or delinquency. Here, the neighborhood also plays a significant role. In their study, Hawkins et al. argue that those North American neighborhoods where drugs were easily obtainable and crime and racial prejudice prevailed negatively affected adolescents and increased their risk to become violent themselves. (In Maughan 2001: 187) These theories show that environment has a huge impact on the progression of conduct disorders and antisocial behavior as the influence of peers and community are factors in determining the trajectory of a troubled adolescent.
3.4 The Influence of Siblings
Interactions between parents and children, and among siblings, provide opportunities for children to acquire or inhibit antisocial behavior patterns. (Siegel and Welsh 2011: 181)
In terms of dysfunctional family patterns, most literature focuses on the parent-child relationship or the interaction between the parents. The relations among siblings are thus rarely examined. While the constellation of siblings, i.e. the order of birth, has been examined for more than hundred years, research on sibling relationships has only become interesting since the 1970s. (cf. Papastefanou 1992: 152) In this subchapter, I will discuss general topics such as the effects of the birth order, sibling rivalry, and the importance of sibling ties and I will consequently try to relate my findings to dysfunctional families. For the purpose of this diploma thesis, it is important to understand how brothers affect each other; therefore, the focus will completely be on families with only male children.
Birth and birth order have been of interest to many psychologists; it is, however, controversially debated in how far birth order has an actual impact on a person’s psyche. The best-known concept is Alfred Adler’s Birth Order Theory. The Austrian doctor and psychotherapist coined the method 'individual psychology' after breaking with fellow psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. His theory about birth order suggests that firstborns suffer
31 from the trauma of being “dethroned” after another sibling is born. Thus, the firstborn child has to overcome this trauma which hence affects his or her personality. (cf. Sulloway 1996: 55) Toman argues that firstborn boys are usually feeling responsible for others, at first for their younger sibling, and later for other people, especially males, as well. Sometimes the firstborn male child even acts in a domineering way as he is often worried about others. The author further characterizes the eldest brother as somebody who works hard, keeps focused and acts in a pragmatic way because he likes to be in control of the situation. This is also true for his finances. (cf. 1987: 145f) Papastefanou points to the fact that the relationship between the first child and the mother has a strong impact on the development of sibling relationships since a good communication helps the firstborn to develop emotional stability and consequently makes it easier to accept his sibling(s). (cf. 1992: 155)
Adler, who is himself a second-born, believes that the second child generally tries to emulate his elder brother, thus acting harder to surpass him. (cf. Sulloway 1996: 55) He also learns to follow his brother because his parents suggest his elder brother as a role model; later on, he also follows other male friends, showing that the younger brother can easily adapt to a same-sex environment. He, like his brother, is often insecure among women which stems from the rivalry over his mother, the only female in the house. (cf. Toman 1987: 17) Toman points out, that younger brothers are more often ideologists; they do not place much value on material goods and money but appreciate the joy and feelings of the present. However, they sometimes appear harsh and act tougher as they actually are (cf. 1987: 149) Generally speaking, the young brother can be attributed with the proverb: hard shell, soft core.
Even though most siblings tend to get on well with each other, rivalry is a constant companion during childhood. As previously mentioned, the maternal involvement is significant for the development of sibling ties. Papastefanou remarks that the situation, too, is important: elder siblings have been noticed to act in an aggressive way towards the younger one if the mother was currently playing with the younger sibling. (cf. 1992: 155) Obviously, children have to “fight” for their mother’s attention as they both try to have her all to herself and to get as much attention as possible. Sulloway points out that “in all societies, parents make discriminations about the potential of their children and invest in them accordingly”, therefore, siblings need to find strategies to react. (1996: 67) Children constantly compare the investment of their parents towards themselves and their siblings, especially same-sex siblings are obsessed with comparison. (cf. Papastefanou 1992: 157) In order to get the attention they want, children may act obedient, dominate their siblings, or act rebelliously. (cf. Sulloway
32
1996: 67f) However, just like their children, parents develop strategies to prevent rivalry. Two concepts are “de-identification”, which promotes the differences between two children so that they need not feel jealous of each other; and the “split-parent” identification, which can be a consequence of de-identification. Here, each of the two siblings feels more attached to and identifies with a different parent, thus gaining enough attention and avoid rivalry. Those two phenomena are especially common among same-sex siblings. (cf. Papastefanou 1992: 158)
If sibling rivalry is strongly linked to the parents’ attention, how do siblings react to parental loss? Sulloway argues that the loss of a parent or both parents usually tightens the relationship between siblings as they start to take care of each other and the shared experience of grieving over a family member brings them closer together. (cf. 1996: 137) The effects of parental loss are different in lower and middle- to upper-class. While higher social classes can slightly compensate the loss by hiring tutors or nannies, people from lower class face sudden difficulties if a parent dies, also because they are often dependent on the money this person contributed to the household. In such families, the eldest child often starts to take over responsibility for his siblings. This, however, is not always on behalf of the smaller ones as Sulloway points out: “Younger siblings typically begrudge the firstborn’s heightened authority as a surrogate parent and rebel even more than usual.” (1996: 138) The loss of one or both parents can thus have different effects on sibling ties; they either grow stronger by the siblings’ support for each other, or they become brittle if problems with authority and acceptance of new roles challenge the siblings’ relationship.
In dysfunctional families, siblings can become increasingly important for each other. If parental affection towards the children is lacking or inadequate, siblings may become the primary attachment figure for each other and develop a so-called 'sibling loyalty', a term coined by Bank and Kahn. (cf. Papastefanou 1992: 153) It may be easier for some children to bear the situation at home if they have a fellow sufferer, somebody they can trust and relate to. Siblings who experience neglect by their parents may start to take more care of each other if possible, or start spending more time outside the house to avoid aggressive and drunk parents. The fact that they are not alone can help them cope with the situation in a better way and they might develop mutual strategies to confront the parents at home. Nevertheless, their dysfunctional family can also be a burden for the sibling relationship if siblings fail to support but rather act against each other.
33
4. The Outsiders and Rumble Fish—an Outline
Both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, although very different in their cinematographic style, deal with the struggles of growing up, representing youths from dysfunctional families whose rebellion is an expression of teenage angst. Both movies share the portrayal of boys who rebel against the dreariness of their young but troubled lives. Inherent in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish is the idea of rivaling gangs, who fight each other to give a meaning to their existence and who seem to be the only alternative to an isolated, boring life in the city. This chapter will provide a short summary of both of the films which will be important for following and understanding the subsequent analytical parts.
4.1. Plot Synopsis The Outsiders
When you watch the sun set, you realize it is already dying. The same applies to youth. When youth reaches its highest level of perfection, you can already sense the forces that will destroy it. (F.F. Coppola, 1985)
Youth is a central theme in The Outsiders; the film depicts the transformation of children becoming adults in a very melancholy way as it features Robert Frost’s famous poem “Nothing Gold Can Stay”. The poem is about the cycle of nature, a metaphor for the cycle of life. Frost compares the beauty of blooming flowers to enthusiastic children, but like flowers, the innocent joy of children fades with time. In The Outsiders, the ultimate message of the poem, to “stay gold”, is conveyed through the boys’ transformation and their final understanding of the importance of appreciating the little things in life.
The film is set in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Ponyboy Curtis and his two elder brothers Darrel and Sodapop have recently lost their parents due to a car accident and are now struggling to keep up the family. The eldest brother Darrel works long hours to provide for his brothers, and the middle brother Sodapop, after dropping out of high school, works at a gasoline station. As the youngest family member, Ponyboy still goes to school. The three brothers are part of a gang which is called the Greasers because of the members’ greasy hair. While all of the Greasers are social outcasts, and mostly belong to the lower class, their enemies, the Socs (short for Socials), are bored upper-class youngsters. After a fight with Darrel, Ponyboy runs away from home at night to meet up with Johnny Cade, his best friend, 34 when all of a sudden some of the Socs turn up. Apparently drunk, the Socs provoke a fight during which Ponyboy loses his consciousness for some minutes. Meanwhile, Johnny acts in self-defense and stabs Bob, a Soc who once brutally beat him up, with a knife. Bob quickly dies from his wounds. With the help of fellow Greaser Dallas “Dally” Winston, Johnny and Ponyboy run away and hide in a church some miles away from their home where they spend a few days. There, Ponyboy recites the aforementioned poem by Frost and reads out passages from Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” to Johnny, who is infected by Ponyboy’s enthusiasm for poetry and literature.
One day a school group is having a picnic at the church, when all of a sudden it catches fire. Johnny, Ponyboy, and the visiting Dallas help free the children who are trapped inside the building, but Johnny gets hit by a falling roof and is severely injured and burnt. The boys are brought back to a hospital in Tulsa where the newspapers celebrate the boys as heroes. Ponyboy reconciles with his brother Darrel, who allows him to participate in a rumble with the Socs, who want to revenge Bob’s death. The Greasers eventually win this gang fight and right afterwards Dally and Ponyboy rush to Johnny, whose condition has worsened. Before dying, he hands Ponyboy his copy of “Gone with the Wind”. Dally, who always liked Johnny as a little brother, goes crazy with anger and grief and instigates a battle with the police, who eventually shoot him to death. Ponyboy has difficulties coping with the loss and feels himself once more confronted with his eldest brother’s authoritative behavior. When he takes a closer look at Johnny’s edition of “Gone with the Wind”, he finds a letter from his friend encouraging him to keep his childlike fascination for books and sunsets and to “stay gold”, referring to Frost’s poem. This helps Ponyboy to go on and come to terms with the recent events. He and his brothers agree that they need to stick together and Ponyboy realizes that Darrel’s behavior is due to his worry and love for his two kid brothers and acknowledges his eldest brother’s effort to care for the family.
4.2. Plot Synopsis Rumble Fish
“No, your mother is not crazy. And neither, contrary to popular belief, is your brother crazy. He’s merely miscast in a play. He was born in the wrong era, on the wrong side of the river, with the ability to be able to do anything that he wants to do and findin’ nothin’ that he wants to do.” (01:14:10 – 01:14:39, Rumble Fish)
35
Rusty James is a 17-year old teenager who lives with his alcoholic father in Tulsa, Oklahoma. His mother had left the family when Rusty James was a baby and his older brother, only called Motorcycle Boy, has been gone for months. Rusty James idolizes his brother, who was a notorious gang leader and fought in many rumbles before he initiated a truce among the gangs in the neighborhood and left on his motorbike. Rusty James desperately wants the gangs to come back and to take on his brother’s role as a gang leader, fighting in rumbles. However, there is only one enemy, Biff Wilcox, who wants to fight Rusty James. While all of Rusty James’ friends agree to accompany him, they make clear that they will not participate in a rumble. The evening before the meeting, Rusty James goes up to his girlfriend’s house, where he falls asleep. Patty wakes him up just in time for the meeting with Biff and he leaves her annoyed and worried. During their fight, Rusty James gets slashed by Biff’s jackknife, leaving him badly injured when all of a sudden Motorcycle Boy turns up and disperses the enemies. In the following days, he cares for Rusty James and spends time with him, trying to tell him that emulating his former life as a gang leader is not worth it. He also mentions that he met their mother in California, where he spent the previous months, stating that she is fine and married to a TV-producer. The brothers discuss Rusty James’ fear of being left alone and Motorcycle Boy believes this fear is due to the fact that Rusty James was neglected as a baby for a few days after their mother had left, taking Motorcycle Boy with her. At that time, the father started drinking, not able to care for his youngest son. However, the mother brought Motorcycle Boy back after a few days and moved on alone.
Motorcycle Boy saves Rusty James’ life once more after he is attacked by some hoodlums who search for money and hurt him badly. Again, the brothers have a talk about the old gangs and rumbles, which Rusty James is still enthusiastic about. He cannot accept that Motorcycle Boy doesn’t want to have anything to do with his old life as gang leader anymore and becomes increasingly confused about what he wants for himself. His girlfriend Patty leaves him as she is annoyed with his delinquent behavior and his infidelity. In a talk with his friend Smokey, who is Patty’s new boyfriend, Smokey tells Rusty James that he will never be like his brother (01:04:32 – 1:05:18, Rumble Fish):
Smokey: “Rusty James, if there were still gangs, I’d be president and not you. You’d be 2nd lieutenant. You know you might have made it a while on the Motorcycle Boy’s rep, but you ain’t got your brother’s brains. You gotta be smart to run things. It’s nothing personal Rusty James, but nobody would follow you into a gang fight. Because you get people killed. Nobody wants to be killed.” Rusty James: [thoughtful] “I guess you’re right. Nobody wants to get killed.” 36
Afterward, Rusty James looks for his brother and finds him at the local pet store, where Motorcycle Boy is fascinated with Siamese fighting fish which he calls rumble fish, as they have the drive to kill each other and must be kept separately. He wonders whether this would still be true if they were swimming freely in the river, outside of their cages. The brothers are urged out of the pet store by a policeman because the owner got suspicious of the boys. They come to a bar where they find their drinking father and Rusty James asks him about his mother. He explains that neither the boys’ mother nor Motorcycle Boy are crazy but that they simply have a different view of the world. After leaving, Motorcycle Boy takes Rusty James with him and they ride his bike back to the pet store. There, Motorcycle Boy wants to free all the animals and to put the Siamese fighting fish into the river. He asks Rusty James to do him a favor, telling him to take the stolen bike and go down to the ocean, which he never managed to do while he was in California. When carrying the fish to the river, the police are already waiting and shoot Motorcycle Boy down. Rusty James finishes his brother’s plan and puts them in the river. Like his brother told him, he takes the bike and rides off. People are coming to the scene of the event, talking in awe of Motorcycle Boy. The last image shows Rusty James standing next to his bike at the ocean, looking into the distance.
5. Analyzing Juvenile Delinquency in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish
In the following two subchapters I want to explore the portrayal of juvenile delinquency and, more specifically, of youth gangs in the two films. For this purpose, I start by providing background information on the development of The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, discuss in how far they match the genre of Juvenile Delinquency films, and I will show to what extent Coppola’s two movies create a realistic image of youth gangs. Therefore, I compare theories on juvenile delinquency with the filmic representation of youth offenders to figure out in which ways the two films are close to reality or, on the contrary, whether they are rather influenced by Hollywood stereotypes.
5.1. The Outsiders and Rumble Fish – typical Juvenile Delinquency films?
First of all, it is important to consider that both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are film adaptations from 1960s novels by author Susan Eloise Hinton. Francis Ford Coppola directed the movies back to back in 1982 in his own hometown, Tulsa, Oklahoma, using some of the same actors in both films, including Matt Dillon, Diane Lane and Tom Waits. In an
37 interview for Film in Review, Coppola recounts how he and S.E. Hinton decided to work on Rumble Fish: “I said to her, 'On our Sundays off from filming Outsiders, let’s write a screenplay for Rumble Fish; and then as soon as we can wrap Outsiders, we’ll take a break and start filming Rumble Fish.' And so we did.” (Phillips 2004: 156) At that time, Francis Ford Coppola had already gained the status as a superb director, as his films The Godfather (1972), The Godfather II (1974) and Apocalypse Now (1979) were huge financial successes and highly praised by the critics. However, his latest film One from the Heart (1982) had been a commercial flop and Coppola was eager to work on new films to make the critics forget his last one as quickly as possible. (cf. Gray and Thompson 2004: 110) The Outsiders and Rumble Fish were the first films of this kind in Coppola’s filmography, with his previous films being soft-core movies, musical adaptations, family epics, war movies and many more. Both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are commonly tagged as juvenile delinquency films. In this subchapter, I will explore in how far they match the genre and thus include film critics as well.
Shary points out that most 'JD' films depict a specific delinquent style, ranging from more harmless rebellion like skipping school to specific social problems like criminality, drug abuse, or fighting and gangs, ranking Rumble Fish to the latter. (Shary 2002: 84f) I argue that Rumble Fish and The Outsiders, however, emphasize the social oppression towards lower class people as well as family problems, and are only secondarily about gang fights. One scene in The Outsiders makes it particularly obvious that it is a film about juvenile delinquents: when Ponyboy returns home after saving the kids from the church, his, Johnny’s, and Dally’s pictures are shown in the local newspaper under the heading “'Delinquent' youths turn heroes after daring fire” (Fig. 1.) Interestingly, up to that time, only Dally has had a considerable police report and spent some time in jail while Johnny and Ponyboy have only caused attention for running away after the incident with the Socs, in which Bob got killed. However, as Greasers they already have a certain reputation in town, which becomes evident in the scene right after the fire (01:02:54 – 01:02:57, The Outsiders):
Teacher: “You guys are the bravest kids I’ve seen in a long time. Are you guys professional heroes or something?” Ponyboy: “We’re Greasers.” Teacher: [in a surprised voice] “Are…are you kiddin’ me?” Ponyboy: “No I ain’t kiddin’ you. Take me to town and you’ll find out pretty fast.”
38
In general, many scenes point to the fact that it is actually a film about juvenile delinquency, and so do many of the dialogues. Dally, for instance, is the most extreme example. He shows no respect to any authoritative person, be it the nurse or doctor in the hospital, the shop owner or the police. The viewer does not get to know much about his life, but he is already well-known to the local police, spent some time in jail and suffers from a neglecting father, who as Dally states, doesn’t give “a heck if I’m dead in a car wreck or drunk or in jail or something” (00:59:36-00:59:40). If one thing, Dally is defiant, always pretending that he cannot be bothered with anything. One particular scene sums up his whole attitude to life: after Johnny dies, Dally leaves the hospital trough the back exit when a doctor comes up to him to tell him that he’s not allowed in that place. Dally pulls his gun and with tears in his eyes makes it clear that “[he’s] allowed anywhere [he] wants” (01:32:50 – 01:33:00), shooting several times at the doctor with his unloaded gun (Fig. 2.). Dally does not care about rules or respect, but a lot of his behavior is simple pretense, as for instance his gun is never loaded or as he in fact really cares about Johnny. He is not the lonely wolf who cannot be touched by anything or anyone.
Fig. 1. Newspaper heading. (The Outsiders, 01:05:59)
39
Fig. 2. Dally pointing his unloaded gun to the doctor. (The Outsiders, 01:32:56)
In Rumble Fish, Motorcycle Boy, too, is an outlaw but he is also very philosophical and it seems the months spent in California have changed him. All we know is that he had gained himself an enormous reputation as gang leader so that he became a myth when he was away. This is made apparent throughout the film as many scenes show graffiti all over town saying “The Motorcycle Boy reigns”, including the first and second-last scene of Rumble Fish (00:00:30) (01:25:00). Motorcycle Boy is also referred to as a “living legend” or “prince” by people talking about him (00:50:37) (00:52:08). There seems to be a special relationship between him and the local policeman, a man called Patterson, who is all but pleased with Motorcycle Boy’s return to town. He openly states that he does not like Motorcycle Boy and that he is not as great as everybody talking about him believes he is. In a conversation between Rusty James and his friend Midget they talk about the Motorcycle Boy as Patterson’s “bad point” and that he “is looking for just one excuse to get him” (01:05:58 – 01:06:17). Motorcycle Boy, however, never speaks up about the policeman, whenever they encounter each other and Patterson talks to Motorcycle Boy, he just ignores him or smiles mildly at him. Thus, Motorcycle Boy never appears to be aggressive; on the contrary, he seems to be a rather calm person who carefully considers every next step. At the same time, he always smiles in a superior way and is arguably very well aware of his status, appearing slightly arrogant.
The majority of actual delinquent acts in both movies confine themselves to small- time crimes such as drinking and smoking underage, skipping school, staying out late and stealing from the local shop. Nevertheless, gang fights that get people hurt or even killed, the
40 stealing of cars and the breaking into a locked shop by night are among the more serious delicts portrayed in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish. Those scenes are usually turning points within the films, though, indicating that they are not the norm. Interestingly, intervention is rarely the case in both movies, only the endings include police intervention and a thrilling showdown. In Rumble Fish, the police are present in the form of Patterson, the policeman, who acts rather passively most of the time. In The Outsiders, the police have a similar role; however, they do not intervene when needed, for instance, when some of the Socs attack Ponyboy and Johnny. Especially in The Outsiders, the police are made fun of most of the time. Dally makes a policeman believe that he needs to rush the injured Ponyboy to the hospital when in fact both are bruised from the rumble against the Socs and on their way to Johnny. When the policeman even guides the two to the hospital, Dally calls him a “sucker” (01:29:44). He also lies to the police about Johnny’s and Ponyboy’s hideout, telling them that the two boys headed for Texas.
I would argue that the general representation of police is rather negative in both Rumble Fish and The Outsiders. This is made especially apparent in the two climax scenes when Dally and Motorcycle Boy get shot. Just as Motorcycle Boy, Dally is already known to the local police. When he is blind with frustration and runs around furiously, holding up a gun, the police open up a gunfire, shooting at him several times. Although his revolver is not loaded the police perceive him as a threat, not only in that particular moment but also as a general threat to society. The same applies to Motorcycle Boy, who must have caused enormous trouble before he left the town. For Patterson, the policeman, he embodies all evil traits and is, therefore, a bad influence on the younger people, as well as endangering the peace in town. When Motorcycle Boy rushes out of the pet store, Patterson is already there, waiting for him. He shoots him in an instant, not caring about the fact that the Motorcycle Boy is not actually doing a grave harm to anyone but just freeing animals from a pet store, which normally nobody would get shot for. Thus, the police act without reason, driven by their hate for delinquent young men. As Coppola remarks in an interview “Society […] has no place for rebellious loners like Dallas and Motorcycle Boy.” (Phillips 2004: 156)
Both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish have received mixed critiques. Back in 1983, when The Outsiders was shown in cinemas for the first time, it was considered a disappointment with people arguing that Coppola’s golden era was definitely over. Vincent Canby wrote in a critic for the New York Times that the movie “isn’t conventionally bad. It is spectacularly out of touch, a laughably earnest attempt to impose heroic attitudes on some
41 nice, small characters purloined from a 'young adult' novel […]” (1983 [online]) Time Magazine’s Richard Corliss was more gracious with Coppola’s film, arguing that it fits the director’s reputation as “Hollywood’s most famous and flamboyant outsider” but “never manages to reach the peaks of satisfying Hollywood melodrama”. (1983 [online]) He remarks the “unselfconsciously homoerotic” relationship between the boys and points to the androgynous handsomeness of the characters whose muscular bodies are often put in the focus. (ibid.) Interestingly, the New York Times published another review for The Outsiders in 2005, after Coppola released a revised version of The Outsiders called The Outsiders: The Complete Novel which includes originally cut scenes and a new soundtrack. Twenty-two years later, the revised version gets more approval by chief critic Manohla Dargis, who highlights the intimate scenes of Ponyboy and his brothers and argues that the film is meant to be seen “as bigger than life and more beautiful”. (2005 [online])
While The Outsiders is considered to be one of Coppola’s least-liked films, Rumble Fish has gained the status of a “forgotten” film, or appropriately enough, an outsider film as Danny Leigh from The Guardian remarks. (2009 [online]) Rumble Fish can be classified as an art film, as Coppola combines “the rhapsodic passion of opera, the sharp contrasts of German Expressionism, the angst of existentialism and the imagery of Dada” within the genre of 'JD' movies. (Maslin 1983 [online]) Gray and Thomson draw a parallel to 1940s movies and imply that the film has “the mood from Camus […] but it looks and feels like Welles and Cocteau. (2004: 106) Unlike The Outsiders, Rumble Fish is a black-and-white film, except for the blue and red rumble fish, a stylistic means to emphasize Motorcycle Boy’s color blindness (Fig. 3.). As Roffman and Simpson remark, the rumble fish are not only title-giving but also the film’s most important metaphor, linking the trapped fish to Rusty James and Motorcycle Boy, who are not free within their society either. (cf. 1984: 50) However, in her review for the New York Times, Maslin states that Rumble Fish is “furiously overloaded, so crammed with extravagant touches, that any hint of a central thread is obscured”. (1983 [online]) Roffman and Simpson criticize the tacky ending that ruins the philosophical and metaphorical implied theme of freedom. (cf. 1984: 50) Again, the latest review, dating from 2009, is the most favorable. Leigh singles out Rumble Fish in comparison to the dull films of the 1980s, notably John Hughes’ films and emphasizes Rourke’s and Dillon’s authentic adolescent performance, concluding that Rumble Fish was Coppola’s “last watchable film”. (2009 [online])
42
Fig. 3. The brothers watching the colored Siamese fighting fish. (Rumble Fish, 01:08:15)
In interviews, Coppola stated that he liked both films very much and that he did not understand why so many people disliked The Outsiders since he tried to depict it as close to the novel as possible. (cf. Gray and Thomson 2004: 108) Rumble Fish is a very personal film to him; it is dedicated to his elder brother August Coppola, to whom he looked up to like Rusty James does to Motorcycle Boy. (cf. ibid: 112) Although not completely torn apart by critics, Rumble Fish and The Outsiders miss their chance to artistically contribute to the genre of 'JD' films, as Roffman and Simpson argue. (cf 1984: 49) They regret that Coppola’s two films lack the social criticism but in return are packed with clichés. While The Outsiders’ message serves the Hollywood stereotype that “there’s no such thing as a bad boy”, Rumble Fish “is a weak representation of the rebel in conflict with society”. (ibid. 49f) I conclude that both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish are considerable portrayals of Juvenile Delinquency; however, the fact that they are closely based on novels somewhat restricts Coppola’s possibilities of creating didactic films.
5.2. Hollywood’s Interference in a Realistic Representation of Youth Gangs
As mentioned in subchapter 2.5. Juvenile Delinquency is one of Hollywood’s most established genres and the showcasing of crime in association with male youth has been fascinating people for decades ever since. As Hollywood’s primary purpose is to entertain, it is questionable how realistically the films depict a story or how these stories are exaggerated and altered for the sake of people’s pleasure and amusement. In this subchapter, I will analyze the representation of youth gangs on a general level and then go on to show in how far
43
Coppola’s films The Outsiders and Rumble Fish correspond to the theory and are therefore realistic depictions of juvenile delinquency. In contrast, I will explore clichés and gender stereotypes in the movies to point out Hollywood’s interference in the filmic representation of antisocial youth, arguing that The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, like other 'JD' films made in Hollywood, cannot be free of any pre-given maxim of America’s largest film industry.
In simple words, a youth gang is a group of people sharing the same feeling of belonging. In The Outsiders, the youth gang has even more meaning to its members; it replaces the family and becomes a lifestyle. Considering the notorious reputation that is inherent to youth gangs, the gangs portrayed in The Outsiders are rather romanticized. In Rumble Fish, the era of gangs is already over, Rusty James and his friends are a halfhearted try to reawake the former town-ruling gangs. It is important to be aware that in both films, the youth gangs are not top-down organized criminal groups that engage in illegal activities such as drug smuggling et cetera. In The Outsiders, the Greasers and the Socs are well-known groups within their town, but mostly, they attack each other or commit small crimes. In Rumble Fish, youth gangs are not active anymore, it is said, though, that drugs destroyed the groups. In both films, the goal of the gangs is to rule over the town or at least a certain territory. Drawing back to Cloward’s and Ohlin’s (1960) three types of youth gangs presented in the theoretical part, the gangs portrayed in the films are thus typical conflict gangs.
Taking a closer look at the Greasers the members are all from a lower socioeconomic background and they do not seem to have too many chances to climb the social ladder. The characters we know a little bit better come from dysfunctional families and the others are apparently rather on the street than at home. Most of the Greasers work, which means that they either left school early or failed an academic career otherwise. The boys know each other from school, work, or the neighborhood; however, it is not mentioned how and when they founded the Greasers. In contrast, there are the Socs, whose name already suggests their higher status or their social respectability. Their preppy outer appearance distinguishes them from the Greasers and so does their territory. While the Socs occupy the south side of Tulsa, the Greasers live in the north, or, on the “wrong” side of town. (cf. Corliss 1983 [online]) Nevertheless, they often instigate rumbles to prove which gang is in charge of Tulsa.
As is common among youth gangs and organized gangs in general, both the members of the Greasers and the Socs share common optical features. As mentioned above, the Socs walk around in preppy clothes and, as money is not an issue, they all drive Mustangs, which the Greasers are rather envious of. The Greasers wear jeans and tight t-shirts, sometimes 44 leather jackets. Most importantly, they all have greasy hair, combed back with a lot of hair oil. They embody the tough, wild kid from the street. Except their outer appearance and background, the Greasers and the Socs do not seem to be that different at all. (00:32:38 – 00:32:57, The Outsiders):
Bob: “You guys know what Greasers are? White trash with long greasy hair.” Ponyboy: “You know what a Soc is?” Randy: “What?” Ponyboy: “White trash with Mustangs and Madras.”
The fact that both groups engage in illegal fights and do not hesitate to hurt one another without reflecting the consequences characterizes them both as “trash”, no matter what class background. Nevertheless, in a later dialogue between Ponyboy and Randy, the Soc makes the most painful difference obvious. Due to their status as social outsiders, the Greasers will always “be at the bottom” while the Socs are “the lucky ones on top with all the breaks” (01:11:29 – 01:11:33).
It is arguable that the Greasers and the Socs are typical troublemakers, which means that they do not really pursue any criminal plans but rebel against the system, the authorities and the aimlessness of their lives. While the Socs are probably bored and thus engage in illegal fights for their own amusement and thrill, the Greasers rebel against society that will not integrate them and will forever perceive them as “outsiders”. Both gangs are angry, both are not content with the chances they get out of life. Dally and Johnny are good examples, they have nothing left to lose: their parents do not care about them and they know that their future will not be too bright. However, at one point Johnny realizes that there is so much worth living for but Dally has already given up on life. He does not fear the police or any consequences for his deeds, which makes him particularly dangerous. In the end, he provokes his own death by teasing the police once more.
The only thing that keeps the other Greasers from becoming like Dally is their affinity. “All of the Greasers were orphans, all outsiders, but together they formed a family”, Coppola remarks in an interview. (Phillips 2004:154) There is a strong bond among the members of the Greasers; it seems almost like a brotherhood. Dally, on the other hand, lets nothing get too close to him. He gives Ponyboy the advice to become tough and to look just for himself so that nothing can ever touch him. Nevertheless, he is deeply hurt by Johnny’s death who always reminded him of himself as a younger boy. Although Dally is the toughest member of the Greasers and respected and liked by anyone, he is, in fact, the loneliest. For the other 45 boys, their friendship has priority; their solidarity helps each and everyone to manage their lives. The boys support each other; there are a mutual understanding and a trust among them that helps them overcome their situation as outcasts. Therefore, the gang’s main purpose is not the engagement in illegal activities or the quest for respect within a territory, the gang’s importance lies within providing a family-like structure for its members.
As Yablonsky (1959) claims, most juvenile gangs are not very well organized and establish themselves out of opportunistic reasons. (as cited in Covey et al. 2006:8) This may very well apply to both the Greasers and the Socs, which are rather loosely organized groups. There is no particular leader; all members are equal, the elder ones take responsibility for the younger members but they lack a clear hierarchical structure. As mentioned above, it is not shown in the film how the gangs came into being, but it seems likely that neighborhood and school environment was a significant factor, thus corresponding to the theory. The two gangs are not an actual threat to society as they rather focus on battling each other; apart from the rumbles, delinquent delicts are carried out by singular persons and not by the gang as a whole. Except for Dally, none of the members has an ongoing feud with the police and they all seem to manage their lives quite well, considering that they have to go to work or school regularly. Hence, there is no need or reason for them to move away from this path and drifting into a life of crime and illegal activities.
In Rumble Fish, gangs only exist in the past; therefore, there is no representation of a juvenile street gang. However, Motorcycle Boy used to be their leader so we can try to judge the structure of the former gangs by his character. It is made apparent from the first scene on that the Motorcycle Boy was special to several people in the town as his name is written all over walls and street signs. From what his brother and friends talk about him, he was a well- respected leader. This makes it probable that his gang was hierarchically structured. The fact that drug abuse dissolved the gangs leads to the assumption that the gang members were either too focused on a hedonistic lifestyle or too depressed and discontent with their lives, and thus reached for drugs. Nevertheless, Motorcycle Boy is depicted as smart and also as a very good negotiator as he incited a truce among the gangs before he left. It is not known which troubles his and the other gangs caused but when he returns, the policeman calmly remarks “You know we’d all be better off if you’d stayed gone” (00:17:44 – 00:17:47), hence holding him accountable for the chaos.
Up to this point, the two films show a rather realistic depiction of youth gangs and match the literature about juvenile delinquency. Environmental and social factors seem to be 46 most evident, especially the family situation. Poor parent-child relationships are one of the most crucial factors that possibly lead to antisocial behavior and in both The Outsiders and Rumble Fish deprivation at home is prevalent for most of the characters. In contrast to the family situation, peer relations are quite strong, especially in The Outsiders. As mentioned above, this is what helps the boys lead a relatively stable life and it becomes obvious how important a strong social environment is especially for young adolescents. In Rumble Fish, Rusty James’ friends are only seemingly supportive of him. Steve, his friend from a better social background, tolerates the fact that he is mostly made fun of by Rusty James as he is well-behaved and shy. Nevertheless, he finally manages to tell Rusty James that he is fed up with him romanticizing the gangs: “You and your gangs. It was bullshit, Rusty James. It wasn’t anything you think it was.” (00:57:36 – 00:57:44) Smokey, another one of Rusty James’ friends tricks him into betraying his girlfriend so that he himself can get back together with her and makes it clear to Rusty James that he will never be as respected as his brother, Motorcycle Boy. In the end, Rusty James understands that he is alone, dreaming of a nostalgic past and realizes that he cannot rely on his friends but needs to find his own way to live the life he wants.
Interestingly, state intervention is not depicted in the films. This, however, might be due to the fact that the films date back to the early 1980s, and the novels they are based on go even further back to the 1960s, a time when state intervention was not as sufficient as it is today. In both films, it seems, the children but also their parents are left alone with their problems and the difficult situation they find themselves in. A person like Dally, who already spent time in jail, does not have a helping hand after being released, which increases the likelihood that he will stay a hoodlum and engage in criminal acts again. Also, Johnny, who obviously looks like a beaten child, is not cared for by his parents and prefers to stay out at nights instead of sleeping at home. Rumble Fish’s Rusty James lives alone with a chronic alcoholic but he too receives no support from any state organization. Those young adolescents are forced to grow up very early but without even any role model to look up to it is unlikely that they will succeed in life. Thus, the films are good examples of showing how important state intervention would be and how they could help juvenile delinquents manage their lives and be positive about their futures.
In this respect, it is to be noted that no film or piece of art can be analyzed without regard to the historical context of its time of creation. Politically, the 1980s were dominated by Ronald Reagan, 40th president of the United States. During his presidency, the
47 unemployment rate rose to over 10% and the income gap increased, which led to a drop in poor people’s living standard in the early 1980s. (cf. Quart and Auster 1991: 138) Quart and Auster state that the public did little to help the poor and actually, most people did not even realize the worsened condition of the poor as they lived far away from the better quarters. (ibid.) This may also explain why state intervention was not very common at that time and is thus not represented in the films. At a time when middle- and upper-classes only cared for themselves, the lower class was almost made invisible by the media and was hence not represented in society’s daily life. I would, therefore, argue that Coppola captures the political climate of the early 1980s and transfers it to The Outsiders rather than imitating a 1960s feeling. In contrast, Rumble Fish is different as it draws heavily on 1940s movies, thus creating an old-fashioned yet timeless atmosphere. It is further interesting to note that Rumble Fish is a low-budget production, whereas The Outsiders is a blockbuster and thus more closely tied to Hollywood’s demands.
Nevertheless, what both films have in common is a strong focus on the male body. As mentioned in chapter 2.5 the male built muscular body was an important feature of 1980s Hollywood films. In The Outsiders, each of the actors looks more handsome than the average juvenile delinquent and their bodies are healthy and fit. They show off their muscles whenever they can, which is even addressed in one scene before the rumble. (01:22:23 – 01:22:26, The Outsiders):
Ponyboy: “Why do you like fights, Darry?” Sodapop: “Because he can show off his muscles.”
The boys are seen shirtless in several scenes; they also arm wrestle which nurtures the image of strong, healthy young men (Fig. 4.) (Fig. 5.). Hence, the film even creates an erotic undertone at times, which further romanticizes juvenile delinquency. Coppola’s decision to play with the image of the male body has also been criticized. Corliss, for instance, describes Dally as a “role model for sexy self-destruction” and Dargis remarks that the characters “all look good doing what they usually do, which is not much at all”. (Corliss 1983 [online]) (Dargis 2005 [online]) Adding to this, the characters are always styled, imitating the James Dean look of the 1950s, which indeed is the archetypical outlaw style. The Greasers wear jeans, muscle tops, and leather jackets, looking a bit too well-dressed considering their poorer backgrounds. Here, Hollywood interferes with an authentic, naturalistic depiction of juvenile delinquents, focusing too much on the look.
48
Fig. 4. Arm wrestling. (The Outsiders, 01:22:05)
Fig. 5. The male body. (The Outsiders, 01:06:44)
In Rumble Fish, the eroticism also includes the female characters. In Rusty James’s daydreams, we see the character of Patty in black lingerie lying on a cupboard, smiling at him in a seductive way (Fig. 6.). In another scene, Rusty James and his friends are partying in a house with girls who are either naked or wear hardly any clothes. Motorcycle Boy’s friend Cassandra is depicted wearing a miniskirt and dancing provocatively in front of Motorcycle Boy, Rusty James and Steve. Rusty James is dressed similarly to the characters in The Outsiders; he usually wears jeans and a muscle top or unbuttoned shirt and sometimes a bandana in his hair (Fig. 7.). In contrast to that, Motorcycle Boy wears comparatively conservative clothes, a wool pullover, T-shirts or an outworn suit. Unlike Rusty James, he is never seen topless and never shows his muscles. This emphasizes the difference between his younger brother and himself as he does not need special clothing or his fit body to impress 49 people. This also shows that Motorcycle Boy has finished with his former lifestyle and that it is not his healthy body but his brains that gain him respect. Again, Coppola includes nudity and sexual allusions which are purposely mere entertainment.
Fig. 6. Patty in Lingerie. (Rumble Fish, 00:22:34)
Fig. 7. Rusty James’ outfit. (Rumble Fish, 00:13:39)
Furthermore, Coppola’s two 'JD' films reinforce several clichés. In the words of Roffman and Simpson, “[t]he ultimate message of Coppola’s film [The Outsiders] is the worst of all juvenile delinquency clichés – the overplayed Hollywood maxim that there’s no such thing as a bad boy.” (1984: 49) I agree with Roffman and Simpson as Coppola’s characters are rather likable and not particluarly dangerous or “bad” at all. They appear almost innocent considering Ponyboy and Johnny reciting John Frost poems or Steve, Sodapop and Two-Bit
50 watching Mickey Mouse cartoons on TV (Fig. 8.). The viewer gets the impression that these delinquents are still children who are not yet aware of the consequences of their antisocial behavior. Here, the perspective is missing as the only point of view that is represented in The Outsiders is the Greasers’. Thus, we do not get to know how society or the police perceive the gangs. In Rumble Fish, Rusty James is depicted as a dreamer, too. His fascination for gangs and rumbles is almost childish and in the final scene with his brother, he tearfully begs Motorcycle Boy to give him a chance and run the town with him (01:19:03 – 01:19:44, Rumble Fish):
Rusty James: “If you just gave me a fucking chance, man. Look at me! … I just want you to see me, I’m right here. I’m right here. I just want you to see me.” Motorcycle Boy: “I do see you, Rusty James.” Rusty James: “Hey man, let’s get outta here. You and me…” Motorcycle Boy: [furiously] “You and me, we can’t!” Rusty James: [with a whiny voice] “Ah no man, come on! Come on, don’t do that, man.” Motorcycle Boy: “You know… I wish I were the big brother you always wanted. But I can’t be what I want any more than you can.”
The rejection of his brother hurts Rusty James more than anything else. Being abandoned by his mother as a little boy and neglected by his alcoholic father, his brother is the person standing next to him, but the brothers are too different to connive. Coming back to Roffman and Sampson’s (1984) argument that there is no such thing as a bad boy, I debate that the films depict the characters simply as victims of their environment, who, due to fatal circumstances, have no other choice than being the juvenile delinquents that they are. At the most, they are wannabes, but certainly no natural-born bad boys.
Fig. 8. Two-Bit and Steve watching cartoons. (The Outsiders, 01:07:31) 51
The role of the female in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish is also rather clichéd. In The Outsiders, Cherry Valance becomes friends with Ponyboy after he helps her get rid of the molesting Dally. Although she is from a higher socioeconomic background and her boyfriend is a Soc, she does not side with either the Greasers or the Socs. She is rather beautiful and likable as she is not prejudiced towards less privileged people like Ponyboy and Johnny. Cherry even testifies in favor of Ponyboy so that he can stay with Darry and Sodapop. She knows that her boyfriend Bob attacked Ponyboy and Johnny first and that he was killed in self-defense. Due to this act she is almost depicted as a Good Samaritan who helps the poor against the evil. However, she too cannot resist the charm of a bad boy as she admits to Ponyboy “I hope I never see Dallas Winston again. If I do, I’d probably fall in love with him” (00:25:17 – 00:25:22).
In Rumble Fish, Rusty James’ girlfriend Patty is well-aware of her boyfriend’s delinquent nature and unreliability but she still accepts his excuses. She tries to dissuade him from going to the rumble and is, in fact, the only person in the whole film who tells Rusty James that he is better than his brother because he is warm-hearted. Nevertheless, Patty is increasingly annoyed by Rusty James’ behavior and finally finishes with him. The fact, that she is dating Rusty James’ friend only some days later makes her appear somewhat reliant on men, though. This image also applies to Cassandra, an ex-girlfriend of Motorcycle Boy who hangs around the boys’ flat after hearing of Motorcycle Boy’s return. He, however, is fed up with her taking drugs. When Rusty James states that he would break his girlfriend’s arm if he caught her doing heroin, she only replies “I wish he would show me that much mercy” (00:25:42 – 00:25:46). Thus, she too is dependent of him and would even accept punishment, which implies her weakness. In conclusion, both films make use of and reinforce traditional gender roles, which again is due to Hollywood’s influence on the films.
6. Analyzing the Family in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish
6.1. Dysfunctional Families – The Root of all Evil?
Dysfunctional families are predominant in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish. The questions are, are the family situations the cause for the children’s antisocial behavior and does a dysfunctional family lead to the status of an “outsider”; or is it rather a matter of correlation? In both films we witness juvenile delinquents becoming gradually destroyed by their families, lacking a stable background and caring parents. In this subchapter, I want to
52 show the dysfunctions underlying the family situation and point out how they affect the characters and their actions.
In Rumble Fish, Rusty James grows up with his father and his four years elder brother after their mother left them when Rusty James was still a baby. This already augurs a difficult family situation since the children lack their mother and hence a second person to raise them and care for their needs. Additionally, the missing of a mother may cause difficulties in men’s sexual development as they are not used to the female sex and thus act insecurely around women. The loss of a family member changes a family constellation drastically and affects the members in numerous ways which can be very well seen in Rumble Fish. Every member develops their own methods of dealing with the loss. The father, whose wife left him alone with two young boys, cannot cope with the burden of caring for the family on his own and drowns his sorrows in alcohol, leaving his children unattended and neglected. The elder child Motorcycle Boy, who at that time is only about five years old, develops an antisocial behavior and becomes a criminal. Rusty James, at that time still a baby is the only member who is too young to understand the loss; he does not need to cope with grief and grows up without a mother, accepting this circumstance as normal. Therefore, the mother’s leaving the family generates several dysfunctions: the father’s substance abuse, the elder son’s oppositional conduct behavior, and neglect of the younger son.
In a dialogue between Motorcycle Boy and Rusty James, the viewer gets to know that the father started drinking the day the mother left him and the children. It is arguable that the father had been prone to alcohol abuse since he became an alcoholic overnight, but nevertheless his drinking has increased so much over time that he often passes out at home and does not realize what is happening around him. The night Motorcycle Boy returns and doctors the bleeding Rusty James, the father has passed out again. The following evening, he realizes that his eldest son has returned (00:28:24 – 00:28:35, Rumble Fish):
Father: “Both of you are home?” Rusty James: “Hey dad, you got any money I can borrow?” Father: [looking at Motorcycle Boy] “Haven’t seen you for quite some time.” Motorcycle Boy: “I was home last night, dad.” Father: “I didn’t notice.”
This short dialogue shows how little the father notices what is happening to his sons or generally at his home. Furthermore, he does not seem to be angry or mad at Motorcycle Boy for being absent for such a long time without saying good-bye. The father accepts his sons’ 53 behavior no matter how abnormal or alarming it may be. However, the father discovers Rusty James’ wound from the rumble and asks him about it. Rusty James plays it down and the father simply advises him to be more careful and does not discuss it any further. In these short dialogues, we get the impression that the father is not worrying too much about his sons just as they are not worrying about his alcoholism anymore.
The father’s alcohol abuse is arguably influencing the sons, too. Rusty James repeatedly drinks; he steals beer out of Patty’s fridge and talks his friend Steve into drinking so that they both get drunk in a bar and lose Motorcycle Boy out of sight. Rusty James’ drinking behavior is also due to his oppositional behavior as he likes to represent the tough guy, who does not care about rules. Nevertheless he tries to hide the drinking from his father as he asks Steve to remind him to chew a gum before going home. After Rusty James gets stabbed by Biff Wilcox, Motorcycle Boy takes one of his father’s hidden bottles of liquor, lets Rusty James drink some of it to numb the pain, and then throws the rest of it on his wound for disinfection. These scenes show that alcohol is a part of the brothers’ life and they are used to drinking or using it. However, Motorcycle Boy is never seen drinking and even teases his father by taking away his bottle. Although Rusty James does not approve of his father’s drinking habits the boys have accepted their father’s alcoholism simply because they are used to it. As much as the brothers have given up on their father, he has given up on his sons, knowing that he failed as a father and educator. This becomes obvious in the scene after Motorcycle Boy gets shot. A lot of people gather around his body, among them the boys’ father. He notices the death of his eldest son, turns away and takes a sip of his bottle. His expression is rather bland.
Due to the instable family pattern, the two brothers lead their lives in quite a haphazard manner. Motorcycle Boy is beyond twenty but does not have a job or girlfriend and Rusty James is suspended from school because he is usually late or fails to appear to class at all. The brothers prefer wandering around town looking for something to do that does not bore them. As nobody cares about them they can do whatever they want and do not need to fear any consequences. The parental neglect becomes obvious in their oppositional behavior and the boys’ lacking respect towards authoritative people and their own father. Motorcycle Boy and Rusty James get themselves into trouble, they are also not able to keep up relationships with girls and without any support from the state they both can be considered as failures in life. In their particular case, the brothers’ fate has been determined early as the family became dysfunctional the day the mother left and the father started drinking. Motorcycle Boy tells
54
Rusty James that he stopped being a kid at this time, being only five years old, and argues that in contrast to him, Rusty James will never stop being a kid. The father never managed to cope with the loss and argues in a very egotistical manner when he tries to justify himself, stating “You never lost your mother. I lost your mother.” (01:14:50-01:14:53) It is implied that the father used to be a lawyer but is now dependent on welfare. Motorcycle Boy also tells Rusty James that before their father became an alcoholic, the family lived in a big house. The family’s impossibility to come to terms with the past gradually destroys all of its members and makes the family’s breakdown inevitable.
Another problem in the family is miscommunication. While Motorcycle Boy and his father seem to get on well, Rusty James often feels left out. He laments that they talk about things he does not know or understand such as Greek Mythology. Their father seems to have a special relationship to Motorcycle Boy as he always compares him to their mother in a positive way. He always defends their mother’s and Motorcycle Boy’s behavior, pointing out that they have a different perception of the world which makes it difficult for them to lead a normal life. In this scene, the brothers sit together with their father in a bar; he is drinking liquor but seems not drunk yet. For almost the entire discussion Coppola uses a close-up of the faces to build up tension. As the atmosphere proceeds to become more tense, the faces are shown in extreme close-ups, with only particular features of the face left (Fig. 9.) (Fig. 10.). The sweat in their face creates the feeling that it is very exhausting for them to talk and the spectators get the impression that not even speaking to each other is easy for them. This is further reinforced by Rusty James’ request for his father to “talk normal” and his father’s later remark that Rusty James does not understand him. Throughout the whole discussion, Motorcycle Boy sits opposite the two, watching them but not saying anything nor helping to mediate between his father and his little brother.
55
Fig. 9. Extreme Close-up of the father. (Rumble Fish, 01:14:33)
Fig. 10. Extreme close-up of Rusty James. (Rumble Fish, 01:14:38)
The atmosphere within the family equals the atmosphere of the whole film. Coppola is a master of creating a dark, mysterious mood that affects the viewer and triggers a feeling of discomfort. The black and white colors of the film create a strong contrast and the majority of scenes are shot at nighttime, almost in darkness. Rusty James reflects on that, remarking that he does not like their neighborhood as there are no colors. The town appears mostly shabby and deserted; therefore we encounter the notion of neglect again (Fig. 11.). Some scenes are accompanied by a strange music that could be rather considered a noise, sounding like a permanent aggressive chirping. The sky is predominantly cloudy and yet it appears to be a hot summer as the characters are mostly sweaty. At times, it is so foggy, that the characters vanish behind the fog (Fig. 12.). Despite the dark atmosphere, Coppola includes a lot of shadows.
56
The first image we see of the father, for instance, is his shadow, which might imply the notion that the father is a shadow of his former self. However, shadows appear throughout the film, creating irritating lighting conditions. In general, we get the impression that the city is a place that ruins people and gets them depressed. It arguably symbolizes the dysfunctional family, as it is a place people are used to but do not like and where they are hindered from developing.
Fig. 11. Deserted Town. (Rumble Fish, 01:16:34)
Fig. 12. Fog. (Rumble Fish, 01:15:53)
In The Outsiders, the notion of the dysfunctional family is universal. Although we barely see any family scenes, it is implied that the characters come from broken homes. The center of the film is Ponyboy’s family, prone to instability as the three brothers are orphans.
57
The eldest brother, Darrel, functions as the legal guardian for his two underage brothers and experiences constant pressure since the family is under state welfare observation. Nevertheless, the relationships among the members of the family are rather good; it also seems as if the brothers manage fairly well to cope with the loss of their parents. However, the full responsibility is a burden for Darrel, who is trying hard to give his best for the family, which leads to a strong authoritative tone within the family. He fears that he cannot care well enough for his brothers so that they will be sent to a boys’ home. In becoming strict and punishing he hopes to avoid trouble with the state authorities but in fact risks his good relationship with Ponyboy. The increasing dysfunction is owed to missing understanding and communication. Many scenes and dialogues indicate that Ponyboy and his brothers really try to work on their relationships. Especially Darrel tries to imitate the role of their parents and watches Ponyboy’s health, for instance when he tells him to cut his smoking down. He wants to stay home with Ponyboy after the incident with the fire but his kid brother tells him to better go to work as they need the money. The boys’ home is an old rundown house yet the interior lets their home appear cozy and tidy (Fig. 13.). Just like the house, their family is shabby on the surface but solid in general.
Fig. 13. The House. (The Outsiders, 01:04:50)
Johnny’s home is quite the opposite. He is living in the same neighborhood as Ponyboy, with his parents who neglect and occasionally beat him. Additionally, the parents are fighting all the time and it is indicated that they drink, too. Most nights, Johnny stays and sleeps outside to avoid confrontation with his abusive parents. His family situation has a massively negative effect on Johnny, he is traumatized and talks to Ponyboy about killing
58 himself. He admits to Ponyboy that he does not mind being beaten by his father because that means that “at least he knows I’m there” (00:30:55 – 00:30:57), implying that nothing hurts as much as being neglected. The relationship to his parents is so flawed that Johnny does not even want to see his mother when she comes to visit him in the hospital. His mother is apparently drunk, insults the nurses for not letting her go to her son and blames Ponyboy and Two-Bit for all the trouble when she sees them coming out of Johnny’s room. Like the father in Rumble Fish, Johnny’s mother tries to put the blame on everything and everyone else but herself. Her behavior hurts Johnny but he has not given up on his parents yet. Unlike Dally, he is not impervious to the poor relationship with his parents (00:59:24 – 00:59:44, The Outsiders):
Johnny: “You know I don’t…I guess my folks aren’t worrying about me…” Dally: “Hey man, the boys are worried! Do you know that Two-Bit wanted to go to Texas to hunt for you?” Johnny: “Dally, I asked if my parents asked about me?” Dally: “No they didn’t ask about you, so what!? Do you think my old man gives a damn…if I’m dead in a car wreck or drunk or in jail or something? He doesn’t care. But that doesn’t bother me none.”
Although Johnny does not believe his parents worry about him, it is implied that he wishes for them to ask about him and to show some emotions towards their son. Dally’s answer implies that it does not matter whether Johnny’s parents care about him as the boys, meaning the other Greasers, worry and think about him.
In order to distract himself from the struggles at home, Johnny dreams of a place without gang fights and troubling parents where he can escape to. He and Ponyboy believe that they cannot become happy in the city and wish to live in the countryside, hoping that outside the city everything is more quiet and peaceful. Coppola takes up the idea of the liminal zone between city and countryside and applies film techniques to further increase these differences. When Ponyboy and Johnny flee to the church in Windrixville, they can let go of their troubles for some time. The boys eat peanut butter sandwiches, recite poems, discuss “Gone with the Wind” and watch sunsets. When cutting and dying their hair as a disguise Johnny and Ponyboy act childlike and even manage to block out why they initially escaped. Coppola’s choice of the sunset’s vivid purple and pink colors might also represent the natural and beautiful aspects of the countryside in contrast to the dull city. Windrixville is also a place of transformation for Johnny, as he realizes that the world is a beautiful place and
59 that he does not want to die before having seen more of it.
6.2. “My brother’s the coolest.” – Sibling Relations
Characteristic of both films is the portrayal of difficult sibling relationships: Darrel, Sodapop and Ponyboy, a troubled brother-triangle in The Outsiders, and the unequal brothers Rusty James and Motorcycle Boy in Rumble Fish. They need to prove the strength of their brotherly bonds in order to manage the hard times but realize that not all differences are easy to overcome. Having dealt with the concept of dysfunctional families I will discuss to what extent sibling relations affect the family situation and for this purpose I will also investigate two scenes that perfectly portray the ups and downs of sibling love. I term the first scene from The Outsiders “fight scene” (00:29:15 – 00:30:05) and the second scene from Rumble Fish “family scene” (00:29:35 – 00:31:02).
Ponyboy likes his brother Sodapop a lot; he feels that he can rely on his brother and confide in him. His relationship to Darrel is not as close, and Ponyboy constantly feels infantilized by his eldest brother. To friends, he always talks about Sodapop but rarely mentions Darrel, if at all. When talking to Cherry, he stubbornly remarks that Darrel would like to put him in a boys’ home as he cannot stand him but Sodapop prevents him from doing so. The feeling of being unwanted is reinforced when Darrel and Ponyboy have a heated argument. In this “fight scene” (00:29:15 – 00:30:05), Ponyboy comes home late from being outside with Johnny. The viewer already anticipates trouble as Ponyboy is wondering “What is Darry gonna say?” in the previous scene. In a medium shot, the focus is put on Darrel, who, the moment Ponyboy steps in, angrily tosses his newspaper to the floor and stands up from his chair, addressing his kid brother in a strident voice, asking for his whereabouts. Pony rolls his eyes, stroking his arm nervously. The camera then cuts to Sodapop, who sits on the sofa in a relaxed way, asking Ponyboy again about where he had been but in a calmer and softer voice than Darrel. Ponyboy angrily reacts to his brothers’ reproaches and tries to flee from the situation. He looks away from his brothers when telling them that he fell asleep while talking to Johnny. He adds indifferently that he “didn’t mean to” which infuriates Darrel even more. With a wagging finger, the eldest brother makes Ponyboy understand the tricky situation he finds himself in: he cannot even call the police if Ponyboy stays away as he and Sodapop would immediately be put into a boy’s home. Here, Sodapop intervenes, trying to calm them down and invites Ponyboy to go to bed. However, Darrel is too furious to let go, hisses at Sodapop for taking sides and knocks Ponyboy on the floor after he shouts at Darrel to leave 60
Sodapop alone. Regretting his act in an instance, Darrel searches for words to apologize, but Ponyboy is already stumbling out of the house, running away.
In my opinion, this one scene depicts all of the brother’s relationship problems. The role of each of the three becomes obvious: the rebellious young brother, the strict eldest brother, and the middle brother who tries to intermediate between the two. Considering Darry’s character, we can perfectly see how he is put under constant pressure caring adequately for his brothers, feeling that at least Ponyboy is not supporting him in being the new breadwinner and patron of the family. Still, he does not want to hurt any of his brothers and feels ashamed immediately after hitting his kid brother. Ponyboy and Darry are rather different characters which is why they often face difficulties understanding each other’s intentions. Sodapop gets along with both brothers, knowing about their different situations but also feels left out since Ponyboy’s and Darrel’s arguments are usually the center of attention. Referring back to the chapter on siblings in Theoretical Background II, the characters of the three brothers perfectly fit the theory. Darry is the reasonable brother, who tries to bring everything under his control while the younger brothers are more idealistic, dreamier. This scene represents a first climax of The Outsiders and puts the viewer in a tense situation anticipating even further trouble for the brothers to come.
Darrel, Sodapop, and Ponyboy are not quite an ordinary family considering the fact that they are orphans yet living together in a house, being left almost exclusively to their own resources. Interestingly, the loss of the parents is never directly discussed among the brothers at all, somehow the three brothers deal fairly well without their parents. Although financial issues are shortly addressed, explaining why Soda skipped school to start a job, the most troubling problem is the new family structure and the changed hierarchy. Ponyboy’s acceptance of Darrel as new legal guardian is especially problematic for him as he believes that he cannot rely on Darrel, even believing that Darrel does not like him and wants to get rid of him. In a talk with Two-Bit, Ponyboy points out that Darrel would, in fact, be a Soc as he is ambitious and shares more traits with the rivaling gang than with the lazy Greasers. However, he understands that Darrel chose to be a Greaser in order to be united with his brothers and thus gave up the chance for an academic career to earn enough money for the family. This shows that no matter how complicated their situation and relationship may be, Darrel puts his brothers first which in the end is crucial to keep the family together.
In Rumble Fish, the relationship between the brothers is rather different, but still difficult. For Rusty James, his elder brother Motorcycle Boy is both a blessing and a curse. 61
On the one hand, Rusty James admires his brother and looks up to him, but on the other hand, he cannot manage to step out of his brother’s shadow and become an individual. From the first scene on, the viewer finds out that Rusty James is always associated with his brother and gets compared to him, too. Although he is annoyed by the constant comparison he is also flattered as he idolizes his brother and wants to become like him. Throughout the film, he repeatedly states that he will be just like Motorcycle Boy when he gets older, especially visually. This seems rather childish as Rusty James is already about 17 years old and in contrast to his brother has dark hair and fair skin. It becomes apparent that he is jealous of his brother, too. Their father prefers Motorcycle Boy as he reminds him of the boys’ mother and furthermore, Motorcycle Boy is smarter and more eloquent than Rusty James, gaining him respect and admiration from the people in town. However, Rusty James wants his brother just for himself; he dislikes Motorcycle Boy’s ex-girlfriend and tells her to leave, fearing that his brother would neglect him for her. He is also jealous when Motorcycle Boy tells him that he saw their mother in California by accident and that she wanted him to move in with her and her new husband. He later complains to Steve that Motorcycle Boy should have told him earlier about their mother, arguing that she is his mother, too. Here, the viewer witnesses a sibling rivalry as Rusty James feels disadvantaged and deceived by his brother.
To further demonstrate the complicated relationship between Rusty James and Motorcycle Boy I chose a scene that shows the brothers in interaction with their father, which I refer to as “family scene” (00:29:35 – 00:31:03). Motorcycle Boy is fooling around, teasing their father for his drinking habits so that they start a short joyful tussling over the father’s bottle of whiskey in the father’s bed. Next, the camera turns to Rusty James in a medium close-up, who is standing at the door frame, biting his lip and looking at his brother and father in an uneasy way. The next shot shows Motorcycle Boy and the father again, still laughing and the father remarks once again that Motorcycle Boy resembles his mother. With a more serious voice, the father asks Rusty James to be more careful, referring to his wound from the previous fight with Biff Wilcox. The camera reverse-shots back to Rusty Jams, again we see him bite his lip before he tells Motorcycle Boy that he just met his ex-girlfriend Cassandra, and hence completely ignores their father. He steps away from the door, moving towards the end of the back so that the camera focuses on his face, while his brother’s and father’s face are blurred in the background. Rusty James’ face is still on focus while the brother refers to Cassandra in the Greek Mythology causing his father to laugh at the comparison. The camera now frames Rusty James in a different angle, showing his increasingly annoyed face in a close-up (Fig. 14.). 62
Fig. 14. Rusty James’ jealous and annoyed face. (Rumble Fish, 00:30:28)
He is angry at his brother and father as he cannot follow their talk about Cassandra, asking them “what the fuck did the Greeks have to do with anything, huh?” (00:30:30 – 00:30:33) He stands up from the bed, goes towards the bathroom and mumbles that he does not care about the Greeks anyway. This is the climax of the scene, turning the formerly joyful atmosphere into a tense situation. The camera turns back to Motorcycle Boy on the bed, who, with a calm voice, asks his little brother to show more respect. Rusty James comes out of the bathroom, says “Fuck you” to his brother, showing him the middle finger. In an instant his face brightens, he adds “No, I’m kidding, I’m glad you’re back” (00:30:53 – 00:30:57), handing his hand to his brother who laughingly reaches out for the hand, tearing his little brother down to him and his father on the bed and the three of them goof around. In this scene, the viewer notices a growing tension as Rusty James is bothered by being left out by his brother and father having fun together. When Rusty James seems to incite an argument with his brother, he backpedals quickly and turns the tense situation into a humorous one (Fig. 15.). Although the family laughs together after the incident, the scene remains strange and perfectly depicts the complex relationship between the brothers.
63
Fig. 15. The family tussles joyfully. (Rumble Fish, 00:31:02)
Rusty James has a quite romanticized idea of gangs and rumbles; he hopes that together with his brother, they could be leaders of a gang and run the town. Although all of Rusty James’ friends are not interested in gangs anymore or tell him that the rumbles are in the past, he keeps on dreaming. Even when his brother tells him that actually, all the gang fighting was “a big bore” (00:58:30) and the members not as tough and brave as Rusty James imagines, he does not give up on his idea since it is the only thing he has got left that inspires and motivates him. The viewer feels the growing distance between the two brothers and realizes the differences that they will not overcome. Motorcycle Boy gradually becomes aware of the fact that he cannot be a support for his brother but instead stands in his way and hinders him to grow up and develop. He hopes for Rusty James to have a better future or rather, to have a future at all, and tries his best to keep him from being on the streets and get into trouble like he used to when he was younger. When he realizes that his attempts to talk to Rusty James fail, he understands that without him, his little brother finally has the chance to live his own life and find new dreams he can pursue. He asks his brother to take the bicycle and go to the ocean as a favor, wanting Rusty James to start anew and become free of his troubles.
The two films show how sibling relations affect the individual and the family as a whole, portraying the fragile bonds of brotherly love. During the time of growing up, kid brothers may admire, idolize but also envy or dislike their elder brothers. In Rumble Fish and The Outsiders, we are presented with a broad spectrum of sibling emotions which also enables us to get to see the different perspectives as we can identify with all of the characters. While
64 the one film depicts the destroying features of brother admiration, the other one demonstrates the importance of sticking together and accepting each others’ flaws. It becomes painfully apparent, that not all relationships are meant to last and not all brothers become stronger as they unite. After all, each individual has to cope on his own and faces the troubles of life alone.
65
7. Conclusion
Juvenile Delinquency is a social issue that has affected our society and media for more than a century causing anxiety and upset among the people. Nevertheless, the film industry realized early that the portrayal of juvenile delinquency also evokes thrill and entertainment and lures excited viewers to the cinemas. Numerous 'JD' films have consequently depicted the troubled youth in all possible facets focusing on social wrongs, reckless youth, or bullying authorities, to name only a few. Various theories have dealt with juvenile delinquency, connecting different factors to antisocial behavior. In this thesis I tried to link juvenile delinquency to dysfunctional families, showing that ill social relationships thoroughly affect an adolescent’s behavior, leading to criminal delicts in the worst case. On the basis of multiple examples this work sought to explore the family situation in the two films The Outsiders and Rumble Fish and its influence on the representation of juvenile delinquents.
The intent of the first chapter “Theoretical Background I: Juvenile Delinquency” was to provide all necessary information on the study of juvenile delinquency, including the historical background and possible definitions, showing that the concept of juvenile delinquency itself is rather recent and that laws have been constantly altered. It has become clear that several factors working together induce delinquency, among them different social factors such as parenting styles as well as socioeconomic background and individual factors such as genes and neurocognitive deficits. The subchapter about youth gangs has demonstrated that juvenile delinquents often organize themselves in groups which can have different characteristics. Criminal groups range from temporary mobs to hierarchically organized gangs. Again it was shown that social and environmental factors are strongly influencing the upcoming of gangs and people joining them. Neighborhood and social environment, for instance school, play a crucial role in the emergence of groups of delinquent adolescents. Additionally, the subchapter “Juvenile Delinquency in Film” illustrated the film industry’s approach to the topic where the image of the idolized bad boy prevails. Undeniably, the tough male dominates 'JD' films with the female character as passive or reformative part, thus, gender stereotyping is not a rarity in Hollywood films about troubled youth but, in fact, normality.
The second chapter “Theoretical Part II: Dysfunctional Families” has sought to present a framework for the concept of the dysfunctional family, starting with definitional problems and historical overview of recent changes from the complex to the nuclear family. The thesis further explored a number of specific ways of malfunctions linked to parents; these included 66 physical abuse, neglect and alcoholism but also possible effects on the child, such as oppositional defiant behavior. In order to explore the family as a whole, the subchapter on sibling influence illustrated the complex sibling relationship, providing Adler’s Birth Order Theory, reflections on sibling constellation and sibling rivalry. The constant comparison of children with their elder siblings affects their psychological development and is therefore also important for their personal growth. As such, a connection to the two films was drawn, in which brotherhood plays a significant part for the understanding of the characters and their actions.
“The Outsiders and Rumble Fish – an Outline” gives a short summary of the two films to provide a basic background for the analytical chapters. “Analyzing Juvenile Delinquency in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish” examines the filmic representation of juvenile delinquents in the two chosen films. It has been shown that the two films by director Francis Ford Coppola are typical 'JD' films, fitting in the pattern of Hollywood movies about delinquent youth. The iconic representation as well as the characters’ psychology nurtures gendered stereotypes, depicting the male characters as tough and independent and the female characters as weak and reliant on men. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated, on the basis of numerous examples, that although the films are often realistic and fit the theory, the portrayal of juvenile delinquency is rather romanticized. Therefore the films are classical Hollywood representations of juvenile delinquency, convenient for entertainment and satisfaction of the spectators’ needs for thrill. In addition, the male body is put into focus, evoking cinematic spectatorship. The aesthetics of cinema are apparent in Coppola’s portrayal of the male delinquent with his perfect, healthy body and muscles. It has also been demonstrated that clothing adds to constructing the “bad boy”.
The final chapter “Analyzing the Family in The Outsiders and Rumble Fish” illustrates the ill family relationships in the films and their effects on the characters. The psychological aspects underlying the dysfunctions have been made evident in this thesis, showing how the social environment can harm and destroy a young persons’ life. The stylistic means chosen by Coppola to emphasize the tense relationships demonstrate how cinema works to depict the subconscious and the psychological aspects of a human being in film. The last subchapter about sibling relations has sought to provide a thorough analysis of the two brother relationships, the troubled triangle in The Outsiders on the one hand, and the unequal brothers in Rumble Fish on the other hand. The “fighting scene” and the “family scene” display the fragile bonds of brotherhood, which determine the characters’ paths as the brothers’ lives are
67 strongly linked to each other. The concepts of dysfunctional families and juvenile delinquency are so closely connected in both films that one actually determines the other. In the specific case of these two films, juvenile delinquency is thus a consequence of a dysfunctional family.
Concluding this thesis, juvenile delinquency is a difficult topic that is still object to examination, research and studies. Upon analyzing The Outsiders and Rumble Fish, this work contributes to theories about the influence of family – parents and siblings alike – on the development of delinquency and social misbehavior in adolescents. Nevertheless, this has been examined with the awareness that Hollywood films do not offer a completely realistic depiction of juvenile delinquency, thus the results of this work have to be considered under these specific circumstances. Under the concept of the dysfunctional family, more 'JD' films remain to be explored to contribute to the reflections provided in this thesis.
68
Bibliography
Primary Works/Filmography
Rumble Fish. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Universal Pictures. 2003.
The Outsiders. Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. Studiocanal. 2012.
Secondary Works
Alexander, James F. and Christie A. Pugh (1996). “Oppositional Behavior and Conduct Disorders of Children and Youth.” In: Florence W. Kaslow, ed. Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 210-225.
Auster, Albert and Leonard Quart (1991). American Film and Society Since 1945. Second Edition. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Brotherton, David C. (2015). Youth Street Gangs. A Critical Appraisal. New York: Routledge.
Brown, William B., Randall G. Shelden and Sharon K. Tracy (2004/2013). Youth Gangs in American Society. Fourth Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Chaskin, Robert J. (2010). Youth Gangs and Community Intervention. Research, Practice, and Evidence. New York: Columbia University Press.
Coleman, James William and Donald R. Cressey (1980). Social Problems. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc.
Corliss, Richard (1983). “Playing Tough, Going Nowhere. The Outsiders.” Time Magazine 121.14: 98.
Covey, Herbert C., Robert J. Franzese and Scott w. Menard (2006). Youth Gangs. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Dembo, Richard et al. (2001). “Family Empowerment Intervention: Conceptual Foundations and Clinical Practices.” In: Richard Dembo and Nathaniel J. Pallone. Family Empowerment as an Intervention Strategy in Juvenile Delinquency. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc. 1- 33. 69
Dishion, Thomas J., Jeff Kiesner and Francois Poulin (2001). “A Reinforcement Model of Conduct Problems in Children and Adolescents: Advances in Theory and Intervention.” In: Jonathan Hill and Barbara Maughan, eds. Conduct Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: CUP. 264-292.
Egeland, Byron (1991). “A Longitudinal Study of High-Risk Families: Issues and Findings.” In: Raymond H. Starr, Jr. and David. A. Wolfe, eds. The Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York: The Guilford Press. 33-57.
Egolf, Brenda P. et al. (1991). „The Developmental Consequences of Child Abuse: The Lehigh Longitudinal Study.” In: Raymond H. Starr, Jr. and David. A. Wolfe, eds. The Effects of Child Abuse and Neglect. New York: The Guilford Press. 57-82.
Ferdinand, Theodore N. (1977). Juvenile Delinquency. Little Brother Grows Up. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
Flowers, Ronald Barri (1990). The Adolescent Criminal. An Examination of Today’s Juvenile Offender. Jefferson: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Gateward, Frances and Murray Pomerance, eds. (2005). Where the Boys Are. Cinemas of Masculinity and Youth. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Glenn, Andrea L. et al. (2012). “Personal Characteristics of Delinquents: Neurobiology, Genetic Predispositions, Individual Psychosocial Attributes.” In: Donna M. Bishop and Barry C. Feld, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Justice. Oxford: OUP. 73- 107.
Gray, Lucy and David Thomson (2004). “Idols of the King: The Outsiders and Rumble Fish”. In: Gene D. Phillips and Rodney Hill, eds. Francis Ford Coppola Interviews. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. 106-125.
Gruber, Kenneth J. and Melissa Floyd Taylor (2009). „A Family Perspective for Substance Abuse: Implications from the Literature.” In: Christine Huff Fewell and Shulamith Lala Ashenberg Straussner, eds. Impact of Substance Abuse on Children and Families: Research and Practice Implications. New York: The Haworth Press. 1-31.
Hewitt, John D., Matt DeLisi and Robert M. Regoli (2011). Delinquency in Society. The Essentials. London: Jones and Bartlett Publishers International.
70
Hiller-Sturmhofel, Susanne and Cathy Spatz Widom (2001). “Alcohol Abuse as a Risk Factor and Consequence of Child Abuse.” Alcohol Research & Health. 25.1: 52-58.
Hoeve, Machteld, Peter Prinzie and Geert Jans Stams (2008). “Family Processes and Parent and Child Personality Characteristics. In: Loeber et al., eds. Tomorrow’s Criminals. The Development of Child Delinquency and Effective Interventions. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. 91-103.
Hornby, A. S. (2010) “dysfunctional” in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: OUP. 458.
Huang-Pollock, Cynthia L. and Joel T. Nigg (2003). “Cognitive Factors. An Early-Onset Model of the Role of Executive Functions and Intelligence in Conduct Disorder/Delinquency.” In: Benjamin B. Lahey, Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, eds. Causes of Conduct Disorder and Juvenile Delinquency. New York/London: The Guilford Press. 227-254.
Jamiolkowski, Raymond M. (1993/1998). Coping in a Dysfunctional Family. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
Jenny, Carole (2011). Child Abuse and Neglect: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Evidence. St. Louis: Saunders, Elsevier Inc.
Kalisch, Beatrice J. (1978). Child Abuse and Neglect. An annotated Bibliography. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc.
Kaslow, Florence W. (1996). Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Koot et al. (2008). “Individual Factors.“ In: Loeber et al., eds. Tomorrow’s Criminals. The Development of Child Delinquency and Effective Interventions. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. 75-91.
Krinsky, Charles (2008). Moral Panics Over Contemporary Children and Youth. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Loeber, Rolf,Wim Slot and Magda Stouthamer-Loeber (2008). “A Cumulative Developmental Model of Risk and Promotive Factors.” In: Loeber et al., eds. Tomorrow’s
71
Criminals. The Development of Child Delinquency and Effective Interventions. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. 133-165.
Maughan, Barbara (2001). “Conduct Disorder in Context.” In: Jonathan Hill and Barbara Maughan, eds. Conduct Disorders in Childhood and Adolescence. Cambridge: CUP. 169-202.
McLaughlin, Eugene and John Muncie (1993). “Juvenile Delinquency.” In: Rudi Dallos and Eugene McLaughlin, eds. Social Problems and the Family. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. 155-188.
Palusci, Vincent J. (2011). “Introduction”. In: Howard Fisher and Vincent J. Palusci, eds. Child Abuse and Neglect. A diagnostic Guide. London: Manson Publishing Ltd. 1-10.
Papastefanou, Christiane (1992). “Das zweite Kind und die Erweiterung der Familialen Beziehungen.“ In: Familienbeziehungen. Eltern und Kinder in der Entwicklung. Göttingen: Hogrefe. 152-171.
Pearce, J.D.W (1952). Juvenile Delinquency. London: Cassell and Company Ltd.
Phillips, Gene D. (2004). “Francis Ford Coppola Interviewed”. In: Gene D. Phillips and Rodney Hill, eds. Francis Ford Coppola Interviews. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi. 143-167.
Prins, Herschel (1973). Criminal Behavior. An Introduction to its Study and Treatment. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons Ltd.
Reiter, Michael D. (2015). Substance Abuse and the Family. New York: Routledge.
Roffman, Peter and Bev Simpson (1984). “Rumble Fish.” Cinéaste. 13.2: 49-50.
Sanders, Wiley B. (1970). Juvenile Offenders for a Thousand Years. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press.
Saraga, Esther (1993). “The Abuse of Children.” In: Rudi Dallos and Eugene McLaughlin, eds. Social Problems and the Family. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. 47-82.
Shary, Timothy (2002). Generation Multiplex. The Image of Youth in Contemporary American Cinema. Austin: University of Texas Press.
72
Shary, Timothy (2005). “Bad Boys and Hollywood Hype: Gendered Conflict in Juvenile Delinquency Films.” In: Frances Gateward and Murray Pomerance, eds. Where the Boys Are. Cinemas of Masculinity and Youth.Detroit: Wayne State University Press. 21-41.
Shoemaker, Donald J. (2013). Juvenile Delinquency. Second Edition. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Siegel, Larry J. and Brandon C. Welsh (2011/2014). Juvenile Delinquency. The Core. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Snyder, Scott (1995). “Movie Portrayals of Juvenile Delinquency: Part 1 – Epidemiology and Criminology.” Adolescence. 30.117: 53-64.
Sulloway, Frank J. (1996/1997). Born to Rebel. Birth Order, Family Dynamics, and Creative Lives. New York: Random House.
Tasker, Yvonne (1993). Spectacular Bodies. Gender, Genre and the Action Cinema. London/New York: Routledge.
Toman, Walter (1965/1987). Familienkonstellationen. Ihr Einfluss auf den Menschen. München: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Van Domburgh, Lieke, Peter H. van der Laan and Machteld Hoeve. (2008). “Child Delinquency as Seen by Children, the Police and the Justice System.” In: Loeber et al., eds. Tomorrow’s Criminals. The Development of Child Delinquency and Effective Interventions. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Limited. 21-35.
Von Trotha, Trutz (1974). Jugendliche Bandendelinquenz. Über Vergesellschaftungsbedingungen von Jugendlichen in den Elendsvierteln der Großstädte. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag.
Williams, Theodore G. (1996). “Substance Abuse and Addictive Personality Disorders.” In: : Florence W. Kaslow, ed. Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 448-463.
Young, Leontine (1964/1971). Wednesday’s Children. A Study of Child Neglect and Abuse. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Zuravin, Susan J. (1991). “Research Definitions of Child Physical Abuse and Neglect: Current Problems.” In: Raymond H. Starr, Jr. and David. A. Wolfe, eds. The Effects of Child 73
Abuse and Neglect. New York: The Guilford Press. 100-129.
Webliography
Canby, Vincent: NYT Movie Review, The Outsiders. “'Outsiders,' Teenage Violence.” 25th March 1983. http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/25/movies/outsiders-teen-age-violence.html [6th April 2016]
Childwelfare.gov, “Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect.” June 2014. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/define.pdf [17th March 2016]
Dargis, Manohla: NYT Critics’s Choice/Film, The Outsiders. “Coppola Pays a Return to Visit his 'Gone With The Wind' for Teenagers”. 9th September 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/movies/coppola-pays-a-return-visit-to-his-gone- with-the-wind-for-teenagers.html [6th April 2016]
Leigh, Danny: The Guardian Film Blog, Mickey Rourke. “The view: the lost pleasures of Rumble Fish.” 2nd January 2009. http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2009/jan/02/mickey-rourke-rumble-fish [6th April 2016]
Maslin, Janet: NYT Movie Review, Rumble Fish. “Matt Dillon in Coppola’s Rumble Fish.” October 7th 1983. http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9A05E1D7123BF934A35753C1A965948 260 [6th April 2016]
Illustrations
Fig. 1. Newspaper Heading. (The Outsiders, 01:05:59)……………………………………...39
Fig. 2. Dally pointing his unloaded gun to the doctor. (The Outsiders, 01:32:56)………..….40
Fig. 3. The brothers watching the colored Siamese fighting fish. (Rumble Fish, 01:08:15)…43
Fig. 4. Arm wrestling. (The Outsiders, 01:22:05)…………………………………...…….....49
Fig. 5. The Male Body. (The Outsiders, 01:06:44)…………………………………………...49 74
Fig. 6. Patty in Lingerie. (Rumble Fish, 00:22:34)…………………………………………...50
Fig. 7. Rusty James’ outfit. (Rumble Fish, 00:13:39)………………………………………...50
Fig. 8. Two-Bit and Steve watching cartoons. (The Outsiders, 01:07:31)…………………...51
Fig. 9. Extreme Close-up of the father. (Rumble Fish, 01:14:33)………………...………….56
Fig. 10. Extreme close-up of Rusty James. (Rumble Fish, 01:14:38)…...………………...…56
Fig. 11. Deserted Town. (Rumble Fish, 01:16:34)……...……………………………………57
Fig. 12. Fog. (Rumble Fish, 01:15:53)……………………………………………………….57
Fig. 13. The House. (The Outsiders, 01:04:50)……………………………………………....58
Fig. 14. Rusty James’ jealous and annoyed face. (Rumble Fish, 00:30:32)………………….63
Fig. 15. The family tussles joyfully. (Rumble Fish, 00:31:02)……………………………….64
75