Essay 2 redraft feedback

This is now entering level 4 territory but I wish you had made just a little bit more effort on your part to work on my suggestions, rather than only depending on what I'd written. The most important requested change is missing - to add Gauntlett's ideas on Media Effects theories. If you can reproduce work to this standard in the exam you could be looking at an A/B.

Level 4 (from 2010 mark scheme)

Candidates adapt their learning to the specific requirements of the chosen question in excellent fashion and make connections in order to present a coherent argument. The answer offers a clear, fluent balance of media theories and knowledge of industries and texts and informed personal engagement with issues and debates.

Use of examples (16-20 marks)

Examples of theories, texts and industry knowledge are clearly connected together in the answer. History and the future are integrated into the discussion with conviction.

Use of terminology (8-10 marks)

Throughout the answer, material presented is informed by contemporary media theory and the command of the appropriate conceptual and theoretical language is excellent.

Complex issues have been expressed clearly and fluently using a style of writing appropriate to the complex subject matter. Sentences and paragraphs, consistently relevant, have been well structured, using appropriate technical terminology. There may be few, if any, errors of spelling, punctuation and grammar.

What does the film, lock stock and two smoking barrels (Guy Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990s?

This essay will look at Lock stock and two smoking barrels as a cultural product and see how masculinity is portrayed in the film. Also, see how what was happening in the British society in the 1990s and how this is reflected within the film. There is an argument though, that say that the film is just purely for entertainment purposes, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino. Guy Ritchie has directed many similar films to Lock Stock, following the gangster like theme for example, Snatch and Rock n’ Rolla. Masculinity plays a big part in these films and effects how he has define culture within his films. He has been blamed by some critcis, for ruining the British film industry with the gangster-comedy genre. There was a huge rise in the number of films being produced in the gangster genre between 1997 and 2001. Lock Stock was not the first in the British gangster cycle but it did have a huge impact. Critics were therefore concerned that the popularity of the film and the genre, would lead to copycat 'laddish' behaviour. The 1990's were supposed to be the decade of the 'New Man' where men saw women as their equals and weren't afraid to show their emotions. The fact that the film ignored all the new rules meant it was a target for a media moral panic, a film which could potentially influence male behaviour by showing a wreckless life of drugs and violence without consequence. The media has influenced the effects on the formation of male identity.

Guy Ritchie purposely portrayed his male actors in a specific way, making sure they didn’t let off any true emotions, looked and acted like ‘gangsters’. This was done to portray that males in 1990 Britain were not phased by performing illegal acts, which involved things such as, stealing, killing and drugs. Other films being released in 90s were at last beginning to represent not of this same genre, the males in these other films were seen to be caring, loving males. The lack of emotion shown by the actors in Lock Stock, links to Mary Woods ( theory of this showing a sense of ‘laddism’ which shows a British gangster males identity in 1990 would have a lack of emotion for anything or anybody. This point seems to be true throughout the film until the end of the film where for the first time some emotion is shown, when Vinnie Jones shows his love for his son although its through violent way it lets the audience know that everybody does have some sort of emotions.

Lock stock represents what Steve Chibnall (2008) would call a gangster light film as it follows many Gangster Light conventions such as the unrealism and comedy of the film. This helps the audience to be entertained by the filmed and not concentrate on more diverse matters such as, how male centred the film actually is and how it breaks all the rules of the 'new man' ideology. This links to the feminist’s revolution in the 60s and 70s. The very few female roles in the film seem to back this up. Only three females feature in the film, the pole dancer, card dealer and the female who is seen to be a ‘crack head’. The pole dancer supports Laura Mulvey’s argument of the male gaze, that females are only featured in films for males to look at. However, the card dealer challenges this argument as she has authority over the males although she does only play a very small role in the film. The final female in the film again plays an insignificant, passive role in the film that supports Mulvery’s argument. Laura Mulvey’s argument is that films are made with a male audience in mind and female’s only feature in films to attract the male gaze and this film seems to support her argument. During the film, masculinity defines that women are not important to the narrative or to the characters lives.

Masculinity is a major concept within this film as masculinity was major in the 1990s in Britain. The characters in Lock Stock are portrayed as very manly characters through; the language they use, the clothes they wear and the things they do. Guy Ritchie exaggerated so much on their masculinity because during in this time many media products being produced were very masculine. This film was a part of what could be considered a large media movement in the support of laddish behaviour. Many male dominated magazines were launched such as, FHM and Loaded also, Television programme like Men Behaving Badly were also very popular. Masculinity is to be powerful, violent, strong, stylish and also, to have to outlet of emotion and during in this film most of the males that featured in it fit this stereotypical masculine male. Very few of the males featured in the film seem to let off any emotion at anytime, this is because Ritchie is attempting to let the audience know these males are very masculine and also fearless. This links to the idea of identity and how important males identity was during the 1990s, it was important again for all males to be very masculine because of the what products the media was producing, most of the English films being produced at the time were of a gangster genre so this managed to influence many of the males styles and personalities. This is why this particular film was very successful. Some people including Mary Wood (2007) argue that Lock Stock reflects society, where males have had enough of feminist ideas of what they think males should be like. They feel that they want to be free, ‘laddish’ and masculine asserting their importance through violence and style.

Theodor Adorno and John Fiske’s theories can link to Lock Stock through the unrealistic acts that take part during the film. Adorno believes that the media have more power than the audience, where Fiske believes that the audience have more power than the media. Adorno would argue that Lock Stock would be a powerful tool to persuade males to go back to a time when it was important to assert your power and masculinity. They represent opposite ends of the media power debate, A film like Lock Stock can have an impact on the formation of male identity purely through the popularity of the film it can influence how some males function. I feel that Fiske’s theory is more relevant to Lock Stock because it would be the audience that have more power than the media as it’s the audience’s opinions that can interact with the film as all the drug deals, weapons they use and also, the lack of police involved is very unrealistic. However, some people feel that these sort of acts can have a negative effect on the audience because some younger audiences that watch this film may want to perform some of the same acts, which obviously couldn’t be done. I don’t feel the film could have a effect on the audiences behaviour because surely the audience wouldn’t honestly think they can get away with performing such acts, but in the past the audience have blamed the media for their own actions such as, Grand theft auto the game. Adorno would probably argue that the audience are being persuaded to re-define their roles in society, without even realising it.

Although Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us a lot about how the life of British men in the 1990s live their life, in an unrealistic light. It’s clear that it’s exaggerated and untrue to the audience because its clear people couldn’t possibly live their lives like this and its done in the film for entertainment purposes only. Some things within the film may be based around real people and real events but the exaggeration of these tells the audience its very unlikely that British males lived like this in 1990. This film is more of a nod back to the gangster lifestyle of the 60s in London, the time when gangsters were respected and moved in celebrity circles. The kray brothers were the most recognised gangster in the 60s. Lock Stock tells us that in 1990s male identity was very important and this was shown mainly through fashion, what they wear.

Essay 2 Feedback

A fair attempt to answer the question but only scoring you at mid level 3 (C) as it lacks the structure and clear argument needed for high level 3 or 4. You need to redraft with the aim of hitting level 4 and then you will be hitting your target grade. See where I have made corrections and suggestions below and use these to help you redraft. Remember to plan before your write. This is the only way you can succesfully structure an A/B grade essay.

This essay will look at Lock stock and two smoking barrels as a cultural product and see how masculinity is portrayed in the film. Also, see how what was happening in British society in the 1990s and how this is reflected within the film. There is an argument though, that the film is just purely for entertainment purposes, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino. Guy Ritchie has directed many similar films to Lock Stock, following the gangster like theme for example, Snatch and Rock n’ Rolla. + He has been blamed by some critcis, for ruining the British film industry with the gangster-comedy genre. There was a huge rise in the number of films being produced in the gangster genre between 1997 and 2001. Lock Stock was not the first in the British gangster cycle but it did have a huge impact. Critics were therefore concerned that the popularity of the film and the genre, would lead to copycat 'laddish' behaviour. The 1990's were supposed to be the decade of the 'New Man' where men saw women as their equals and weren't afraid to show their emotions. The fact that the film ignored all the new rules meant it was a target for a media moral panic, a film which could potentially influence male behaviour by showing a wreckless life of drugs and violence without consequence. [Now link to question with comment on whether the media has any effect on the formation of male identity]

Guy Ritchie purposely portrayed his male actors in a specific way, making sure they didn’t let off any true emotions, looked and acted like ‘gangsters’. This was done to portray that males in 1990 Britain were not phased by performing illegal acts, which involved things such as, stealing, killing and drugs. Other films being released in 90s were at last beginning to represent males as caring and loving. The lack of emotion shown by the characters in Lock Stock, links to Mary Wood's (year?) theory of this showing a sense of ‘laddism’ which shows a British gangster males identity in 1990 would have a lack of emotion for anything or anybody. + include a bit more on the theory to say why she thinks this is a problem This point seems to be true throughout the film until the end of the film where for the first time some emotion is shown, when Vinnie Jones shows his love for his son although its through violent way it lets the audience know that everybody does have some sort of emotions.


Lock Stock represents what Steve Chibnall (2008) would call a gangster light film as it follows many certain gangster light conventions such as the unrealism and comedy of the film. This helps the audience to be entertained by the film and not concentrate on more diverse matters such as, how male centred the film actually is and how it breaks all the rules of the 'new man' ideology. This links to the feminist’s revolution in the 60s and 70s because the film has been referred to as a backlash against feminism by many including (author and year). The very few female roles in the film seem to back this up. Only three females feature in the film, the pole dancer, card dealer and the female who is seen to be a ‘crack head’. The pole dancer supports Laura Mulvey’s (year) argument of the male gaze, that females are only featured in films for males to look at. However, the card dealer challenges this argument as she has authority over the males although she does only play a very small role in the film. The final female in the film again plays an insignificant, passive role in the film that supports Mulvey’s argument. Mulvey’s argument is that films are made with a male audience in mind and females only feature in films to attract the male gaze and this film seems to support her argument. During the film, masculinity defines that women are not important to the narrative or to the characters lives.


Masculinity is a major concept within this film as masculinity was major in the 1990s in Britain. The characters in Lock Stock are portrayed as very manly characters through; the language they use, the clothes they wear and the things they do. Guy Ritchie exaggerated so much on their masculinity because during in this time many media products being produced were very masculine. [You can't state this without backing it up. It's too general. You could say the film was part of what could be considered a large media movement in support of laddish behaviour. There was the launch of the Lad Mags FHM and Loaded, TV programmes like Men Behaving Badly were also popular.] Masculinity is to be powerful, violent, strong, stylish and also, to have to outlet of emotion and during in this film most of the males that featured in it fit this stereotypical masculine male. Very few of the males featured in the film seem to let off any emotion at anytime, this is because Ritchie is attempting to let the audience know these males are very masculine and also fearless. This links to the idea of identity and how important males identity was during the 1990s, it was important again for all males to be very masculine because of the what products the media was producing, most of the English films being produced at the time were of a gangster genre so this managed to influence many of the males styles and personalities. [Evidence? Can films and other media products really influence male behaviour? This could lead on to a paragraph on the problems with Media Effects theories (Gauntlett)]This is why this particular film was very successful. Some people including Mary Wood (2007) argue that Lock Stock reflects society, where males have had enough of feminist ideas of what they think males should be like. They feel that they want to be free, ‘laddish’ and masculine asserting their importance through violence and style. [Use this quote in the earlier paragraph on gangster light]


Theodor Adorno and John Fiske’s theories can link to Lock Stock through the unrealistic acts that take part during the film. Adorno believes that the media have more power than the audience, where Fiske believes that the audience have more power than the media. [They represent opposite ends of the media power debate and can be used here to discuss whether or not a film like Lock Stock can actually have any impact on the formation of male identity.] Adorno would argue that Lock Stock would be a powerful tool to persuade males to go back to a time when it was important to assert your power and masculinity. I feel that Fiske’s theory is more relevant though because it would be the audience that have more power than the media as it’s the audience’s opinions that can interact with the film as all the drug deals, weapons they use and also, the lack of police involved is very unrealistic. However, some people feel that these sort of acts can have a negative effect on the audience because some younger audiences that watch this film may want to perform some of the same acts, which obviously couldn’t be done. I don’t feel the film could have a effect on the audiences behaviour because surely the audience wouldn’t honestly think they can get away with performing such acts, but in the past the audience have blamed the media for their own actions such as, Grand theft auto the game. Adorno would probably argue that the audience are being persuaded to re-define their roles in society, without even realising it.


Although Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us a lot [what?] about how the life of British men in the 1990s live their life, in an unrealistic light. It’s clear that it’s exaggerated and untrue to the audience because its clear people couldn’t possibly live their lives like this and its done in the film for entertainment purposes only. Some things within the film may be based around real people and real events but the exaggeration of these tells the audience its very unlikely that British males lived like this in 1990. This film is more of a nod back to the gangster lifestyle of the 60s in London, the time when gangsters were respected and moved in celebrity circles. [Include info on the Kray brothers etc here]

Now a proper conclusion please.... Summarise what, if anything, the film can tell us about British male identity in the 1990s. Don't generalise, be specific, refer to theory.

What does the film, lock stock and two smoking barrels (Guy Ritchie 1998) tell us about male identity in Britain in the 1990s?

This essay will look at Lock stock and two smoking barrels as a cultural product and see how masculinity is portrayed in the film. Also, see how what was happening in the British society in the 1990s is reflected within the film. There is an argument that say that the film is just purely for entertainment purposes, made by a director with an interest in the gangster lifestyle and who was influenced by the work of Tarantino. Guy Ritchie has directed many similar films to Lock Stock, following the gangster like theme for example, Snatch and Rock n’ Rolla. Masculinity plays a big part in these films and effects how he has define culture within his films.

Guy Ritchie purposely portrayed his male actors in a specific way, making sure they didn’t let off any true emotions, looked and acted like ‘gangsters’. This was done to portray that males in 1990 Britain were not phased by performing acts, which involved things such as, stealing, killing and drugs. Other films being released in 90s were not of this same genre, the males in these other films were seen to be caring, loving males. The lack of emotion shown by the actors, links to Mary Woods theory of this showing a sense of ‘laddism’ which shows a British gangster males identity in 1990 would have a lack of emotion for anything or anybody. This point seems to be true throughout the film until the end of the film where for the first time some emotion is shown, when Vinnie Jones shows his love for his son although its through violent way it lets the audience know that everybody does have some sort of emotions.

Lock stock represents what Steve Chibnall (2008) would call a gangster light film as it follows many certain attributes such as the unrealism and comedy of the film. This helps the audience to be entertained by the filmed and not concentrate on more diverse matters such as, how male centred the film actually is this links to the feminist’s revolution in the 60s and 70s. The very few female roles in the film seem to back this up. Only three females feature in the film, the pole dancer, card dealer and the female who is seen to be a ‘crack head’. The pole dancer supports Laura Mulvey’s argument of the male gaze, that females are only featured in films for males to look at. However, the card dealer challenges this argument as she has authority over the males although she does only play a very small role in the film. The final female in the film again plays an insignificant, passive role in the film that supports Mulvery’s argument. Laura Mulvey’s argument is that female’s only feature in films to attract the male gaze and this film seems to support her argument. During the film, masculinity defines that women are not important to the narrative or to the characters lives.

Masculinity is a major concept within this film as masculinity was major in the 1990s in Britain. The characters in Lock Stock are portrayed as very manly characters through; the language they use, the clothes they wear and the things they do. Guy Ritchie exaggerated so much on their masculinity because during in this time many media products being produced were very masculine. Masculinity is to be powerful, violent, strong, stylish and also, to have to outlet of emotion and during in this film most of the males that featured in it fit this stereotypical masculine male. Very few of the males featured in the film seem to let off any emotion at anytime, this is because Ritchie is attempting to let the audience know these males are very masculine and also fearless. This links to the idea of identity and how important males identity was during the 1990s, it was important for all males to be very masculine because of the what products the media was producing, most of the English films being produced at the time were of a gangster genre so this managed to influence many of the males styles and personalities. This is why this particular film was very successful. Some people including Mary Wood (2007) argue that Lock Stock reflects society, where males have had enough of feminist ideas of what they think males should be like. They feel that they want to be free, ‘laddish’ and masculine asserting their importance through violence and style.

Theodor Adorno and John Fiske’s theories can link to Lock Stock through the unrealistic acts that take part during the film. Adorno believes that the media have more power than the audience, where Fiske believes that the audience have more power than the media. I feel that Fiske’s theory relates to Lock Stock because it would be the audience that have more power than the media as it’s the audience’s opinions that can interact with the film as all the drug deals, weapons they use and also, the lack of police involved is very unrealistic. However, some people feel that these sort of acts can have a negative effect on the audience because some younger audiences that watch this film may want to perform some of the same acts, which obviously couldn’t be done. I don’t feel the film could have a effect on the audiences behaviour because surely the audience wouldn’t honestly think they can get away with performing such acts, but in the past the audience have blamed the media for their own actions such as, Grand theft auto the game.

Although Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels tell us a lot about how the life of British men in the 1990s live their life, in an unrealistic light. It’s clear that it’s exaggerated and untrue to the audience because its clear people couldn’t possibly live their lives like this and its done in the film for entertainment purposes only. Some things within the film may be based around real people and real events but the exaggeration of these tells the audience its very unlikely that British males lived like this in 1990.

essay 1 feedback

Low level 3 - a C grade
Demonstrates a sound understanding of the different arguments and you are able to use a case study to illustrate a point.

To improve, you would need to include at least one more case study to show how the argument works. Also, you need to change where you've written about Axis of Awesome, it looks like you're saying they know about Adorno's theory but we don't know that - they're simply making a point about the state of the music industry and what it's producing.

This is the standard of work I knew you could produce. Well done.

Theodor Adorno vs John Fiske

Who has more power, the media or audience? This question has caused many debates, one including Theodor Adorno and John Fiske. They are not the only theorists to debate over this question but they both represent their points clearly. Adorno being the theorist to believe that the mass media has more power over its audience. Fiske being the other theorist believing the complete opposite to Adorno, that the audience have more power over the mass media.

Theodor Adorno born, September 11 1903 had a strong feeling that the power of media overpowered its audience. Adorno's was born and spent most of his childhood in Frankfurt, Germany where he became a member of Frankfurt school to study social research. The school was mainly German, Jewish intellectuals who fled from Frankfurt to New York this was when the Nazis rose to power, 1930s. I feel Adorno's opinion, that the media have more people than its audience was influenced massively by Hitler and his strong propaganda. Also, Adorno was shocked greatly by the difference in cultures when he arrived in America as he realised that the media had such a big influence on American workers that they were not even being rewarded for their work but becuase the media was so good such as, films, songs and radio were so interesting and entertaining they didnt realise that they were believing everything the media was feeding them.

John Fiske was born, 1939 in Britain and he was educated at Cambridge University. He then moved to Western Australia, where he became general editor of Cultural Studies at Curtin University this was during the 1980s. His interests are popular culture, mass culture and television studies. Fiske's theory is the opposite to Adorno's, He feels that the audience has more power than the media. Fiske believes that each audience are individually developed and that they also have different backgrounds and identities which allows them to give things within media there own unique view.

Adorno published many books but one he published with his colleague Max Horkheimer in, 1947 which was called 'Dialectic of Enlightment' has a part involved called 'the cultural industry, this shows their deceptions on mass media and also, their opinion on the impact that it has had on society. Adorno and Horkheimer refer to the mass media as the cultural industry they felt that the mass media were just making too similar products they also seem to explain that the German intellectuals were disturbed by how the media is just producing manufactured products and how it is destroying culture as its all the same. They purposely refer to certain things to exceed there point that this culture is not a culture produced by people but by the media.

John Fiske also published a number of books, he published one called, 'Understanding Popular Culture' this was published in 1989. This book just explains his theory that the audience are all unique individuals and that people have their own opinion on the mass media, this is explained throughout the book. For example, one person can listen to a song and feel different emotions to another person or one person could even dislike it where the another person likes it, this is the same with all types of media. However, Adorno feels the mass media are just producing the same products so that everybody can enjoy them. Fiske feels if the media has failures there can not be a formula, if there was a formulae then every product which the media produces would be a success and there wouldn’t be any unsuccessful types of media.

Fiske believes slightly with one thing Adorno says but not to full extent. Adorno says that ''media products may seem different, but this is an illusion''. Fiske feels that they are not all the same but he thinks that, many products are similar but they all have different meanings and the audience can appeal to them different as they are unique. A comedy band called 'Axis of Awesome' recognised Adorno's theory and made a song including many songs from the last 40 years but only using 4 chords, this proved adorno's theory to be correct because it shows that the music media industry just produce songs that all song very similar. However, the songs 'Axis of Awesome' used mostly all from the pop genre so there is an arguement for Fiske to argue his opinion.

Adorno and Horkheimer feel that the media takes up a lot peoples time so there is very little time for people to socialise this appeals to the modern context aswell because today in the 21st century within one house hold most people have a television in there room so if one member of a family is watching something another doesn’t want to they can just escape to their room to watch what they want. This leads to there not being a lot of time even for families to socialise together as the media plays such a big part in peoples lives. However, Fiske feels that the media allows us to socialise, this is true to an extent because you very often hear people talking about things that have occurred within the media including, newspapers, television programmes and even magazines. In conclusion to this, Theodor Adorno and John Fiske both have opposite views on the media but I can understand both of their views. I believe that some media products are similar within a genre but people do have different opinions on then, this is what makes people different, because the media has a massive influence on a lot of people if they all had the same opinion everybody would dress, talk and act the same, although their environment would have some influence on them but this is not true because even within one community you have many different people.

Proposal Feedback

Good, I can follow the thread of the story. Please lay it out with headings and spaces as in the template. You might want to think about adding more detail about the scenes.