Chapter 2
The Contemporary Hollywood Teen Film
The purpose of this chapter is to present an understanding of the contemporary teen
film by concentrating on mainstream Hollywood examples of the genre.1 The case
study film is Amy Heckerling’s film Clueless, and as well as discussing its use of
dialogue, I will discuss its position as part of a turning point in the genre surrounding
its release in 1995. My focus concerns the characters’ use of language which
combines references to popular culture, the actual language of American teenagers,
and the imagination of the film’s writer-director, in creating a linguistic style. The
language style of Clueless plays with the teen-speak of the genre and the stereotype of
teenage speech and then builds upon this. In order to give an impression of the
contemporary teen film, the chapter will begin with an outline of the work of John
Hughes in the 1980s and how his work created greater expectations of the teen genre,
creatively and socially. I will also combine Bakhtin’s analysis of language genres2
and Halliday’s theories of social dialects in order to create a structure of linguistic
hierarchies in the film’s dialogue. Additionally, I will also make use of film genre
studies and discuss the development of the teen genre since the 1980s.
The Hollywood teen film 1980-2005
Linguistically Clueless may appear a straightforward case study as there is only one
language at work (in this case contemporary American English). As an example of
1
Conventions of the teen genre include: light comedy, romance, references to popular culture, scenes
within school, a social event or dance of some kind, contemporary pop soundtrack, conventionally
attractive cast, depiction of social cliques, colourful and fashionable costumes, and a happy ending.
2
The Bakhtinian term ‘language genres’ refers to the different forms of language (in Bakhtin’s work
this is specifically in literature) at work within the text, such as conversation, letters, narration, diary
entries etc.
64
the genre, the film’s narrative and characters are quite conventional and recognisable
from other examples of the genre and beyond.3 Clueless allows us to see the status of
the teen genre and also how the genre adapts and extends itself time and time again.
The dialogue begins from a recognisable point – English, and more specifically
Californian teen slang – and shapes a language that is striking and lyrical (whilst also
indicating the intelligence of the speaker), which has the power within the film to
change the social position of a character, and within the genre to influence the
dialogue in the films that followed.
By looking at the teen genre in the 1990s and at the turn of the new century it is
impossible to miss the influence of the series of films created by John Hughes in the
mid-1980s. Between 1984 and 1987, Hughes created – as writer, director, producer or
a combination of the three – a series of films about teenage characters which have
heavily influenced the genre since then.4 The influence of Hughes’s work, especially
The Breakfast Club, is clear in particular within the ‘school film’, which Timothy
Shary describes as a ‘foundational subgenre’:
In most school films, the educational setting becomes an index
for youth issues, featuring a variety of youth culture styles and
types, as best represented by The Breakfast Club in 1985. Five
character roles played out in that film – the nerd, the jock, the
rebel, the popular girl, and the delinquent – are the roles most
commonly seen in all school films (Shary 2002, 9).
The film uses five archetypal characters of the teen genre, who occupy different
spaces in the school’s social hierarchy, and despite the familiarity of the character
3
Not only are the characters iconic from the teen genre and the work of John Hughes and Heckerling
herself, the film is also an unofficial adaptation of the novel Emma by Jane Austen.
4
Hughes’s teen films of this period include: Sixteen Candles (John Hughes, 1984), The Breakfast Club
(John Hughes, 1985), Weird Science (John Hughes, 1985), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (John Hughes,
1986), Pretty in Pink (Howard Deutch, 1986), and Some Kind of Wonderful (Howard Deutch, 1987).
65
descriptions Hughes was the first to place these labels in the forefront and refer to
them within the film’s dialogue:
Brian: You see us as you want to see us, in the simplest terms
and the most convenient definitions...a brain, an athlete, a basket
case, a princess, and a criminal (Hughes, 1985).
By using this system of labelling every character, Hughes creates a seminal cinematic
representation of the school experience and of the characters that inhabit it, which
feature in every film of the genre. Despite the fact that not every character appears in
every film, a selection of them is seen time and again. Some films and television
programmes have gone so far as to use not only the characters of The Breakfast Club,
but also the narrative framework, as a means of presenting the school experience
quickly and efficiently, before adapting it to a new situation.5 The most obvious of
these is the 1998 film The Faculty, which uses the five lead characters and the school
setting and combines these with elements of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers
(Philip Kaufman, 1978), in order to create a narrative where an alien attack centres on
an average American high school. Not only does the film present these archetypal
characters, but it also uses the audience’s ability to recognise them as a clue to
detecting which character is the villainous alien in disguise. The Faculty is also
notable for its script by Kevin Williamson who has been compared to Hughes several
times for his writing style and use of teenage characters. Clare Birchall discusses
Williamson’s use of Hughes-esque qualities and the narrative structure of The
Breakfast Club in an episode of his television series Dawson’s Creek, whilst also
presenting a resistance to the original text, ‘The ambivalent relationship between
Dawson’s Creek: ‘Detention’ (Episode 1:06). The narrative format of The Breakfast Club was also
used in an episode of medical drama ER: ‘Secrets and Lies’ (Episode 8:16), when five characters are
made to attend a seminar of sexual harassment in the workplace, and conversation leads to the
arguments and character revelations.
5
66
Dawson’s Creek and its predecessors manifests itself in a tension between rejection
and repetition. This tension can even occur in the same episode and focus on the same
ur-text’ (Birchall 2004, 178). The episode’s dialogue refers directly to the work of
Hughes, as the characters notice the familiarity of their situation:
Dawson: This is so Breakfast Club.
Jen: Breakfast Club?
Dawson: Yeah, that John Hughes movie where the five kids are
stuck in detention all day.
Joey: Yeah. At first they hate each other and then they become
really, really good friends.
Jen: Oh yeah. That movie stunk. Whatever happened to those
actors? (Mike White 1998, episode 1:06).
This extract of dialogue is interesting, firstly as the characters acknowledge that the
situation resembles that of the fictional film The Breakfast Club; secondly, as the
characters then critique the film in question; and thirdly, as the episode then continues
to follow the narrative structure of that film. Hughes’s influence is clear here, but
with every new generation there needs to be an element of criticism of the leaders in
the field. In the 1980s themselves there was a fair amount of criticism of Hughes and
his films. Vicky Lebeau discussed the media’s negative reaction to Hughes’s work as
an indication of the depoliticised and selfish generation of youth, ‘a cinema and a
culture which has betrayed the youth rebellions of the 1960s and 1970s... and they
stand accused of a cinematic, aesthetic and, above all, a political banality’ (Lebeau
1995, 21). This discussion of Hughes’s work highlights the problematic nature of
reviewer complaints. The accusation that Hughes’s films were a symptom of the
contemporary youth culture betraying the revolutionary work of the generation that
preceded them is odd as these films were made by members of the same generation as
the critics, the generation of the parents who once rebelled. Unlike the teenagers of
67
earlier decades, the teenagers represented by these characters were not being sent to
war, or fighting for equal rights; they lived in the period that followed the revolution
of the 1960s, the generation that benefitted from the changes in society.
The conflicts depicted in Hughes’s films are internal rather than political – the battle
to create an identity and then live with that identity within the teenage community –
and it is this aspect of his work which has been the most influential within the genre.
By looking at the development of the genre since Hughes, there are several examples
of films appropriating parts of his work, either within the school location, or within
the dialogue between the teenage characters as they eloquently discuss their problems
and emotions. Films such as Michael Lehmann’s Heathers (1989) and Allan Moyle’s
Pump Up the Volume (1990) took the situations seen in Hughes’s film – competition
between school cliques, and disharmony between different social groups – as well as
the sophisticated dialogue and added to these basic factors to create a portrayal that
has proved equally inspirational for the films that followed. The film Heathers
especially, demonstrates the power of popular students in American schools, and also
places the hierarchical system of popularity at fault for the problems of the
individuals affected by the system, ‘placing responsibility on teachers and
administrators who are sorely out of touch with their students, parents who are selfabsorbed and as immature as their children, and the students themselves, who
succumb too easily to the pressures of peer acceptance’ (Shary 2002, 57). As with so
many films of the teen genre, the characters in Heathers desire acceptance from their
peers, and are willing to compromise their identities in order to gain this acceptance.
The need to belong to a group is seen time and again, and especially in the school
films. In an ideal depiction, the resolution of these films tends to show the teenage
68
community accepting the outsiders – or at least accepting their right to an individual
identity – and repositioning them within the hierarchy of the school.
Since the 1980s there have been some key films that have influenced the development
of the genre, especially on the issue of representing the teenage community within the
school situation. Five of the most significant films are Fast Times at Ridgemont High
(1982), The Breakfast Club (1985), Heathers (1989), Clueless (1995) and Mean Girls
(Mark Waters, 2004). One element that links these five is their use of language. Not
only does the dialogue attempt to reflect the teenage experience, but it also attempts
to keep the language in a contemporary form to its audience. By using and
elaborating upon contemporary slang the characters form an initial connection with
the audience.
In The Breakfast Club, Hughes separates the teenage characters from the adults by
using contemporary slang for the teenagers and also creating a familiar though
noticeably dated style of speech for the character of the teacher, which emphasises the
generation gap between the students and their teacher. Mr. Vernon – who is
reluctantly supervising a Saturday detention where the characters meet – is constantly
using phrases such as: ‘Monkey business’, ‘To ponder the error of your ways’, and
‘Don’t mess with the bull young man, you’ll get the horns’. Though each phrase is
well known they are hardly contemporary, and would sound ludicrous if spoken by a
teenager in 1985. It is therefore easy to distinguish between the characters’ dialogue
and also their attitudes through an examination of their language use. Vernon treats
his students in a manner that one might expect from a military figure, demanding
respect without question and using intimidation and threats of violence to get his own
69
way. This could also be seen to emphasise that Vernon is part of the 1960s Vietnam
generation, despairing at the disrespectful younger generation.
The language of the teenage characters includes a variety of contemporary slang,
including:
Andrew: Yo, waist-oid.
Claire: Only burners like you get high.
Brian: You’re so, like, full of yourself.
Allison: Your middle name is Ralph, as in puke.
Bender: You’re a Neo-Maxi-Zoom-Dweebie!
(Hughes 1985)
These examples feature a selection of derogatory terms as the characters ridicule and
insult each other, as well as the structure of their sentences – the unnecessary
insertion of the word ‘like’ mid-sentence, and the multi-hyphenated term of abuse –
with which to frame each form of address. Not all of the dialogue is in this heightened
form, but it is punctured by examples of contemporary and culturally specific slang
such as these. Vernon’s language is very aggressive, especially when addressing the
students, and proceeds to increase the bad feeling between the generations. As with
many of the criticisms of Hughes’s work, as stated by Lebeau, Vernon attacks the
teenagers for wasting their youth, and for their lack of respect towards their elders. In
this instance we see Hughes siding with the teenagers and actively mocking the adults
around them. This happens again in another Hughes film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
(1986) which follows a group of teenagers as they play truant from school and have a
day out in Chicago. The adults in this film are depicted as fools who are easily duped
70
by younger generation, and are humiliated time after time. Even though Hughes
himself was twice the age of his characters at this time,6 his films reward the
teenagers for their ingenuity and their honesty, whilst the adults are punished for their
foolishness and for not really knowing or understanding their children. Hughes’s
films are clearly targeting a young audience, and an easy way of getting this
demographic on side is to mock figures of authority such as parents and teachers.
Therefore we see that the films of John Hughes use the breakdown of the parent-child
relationship during adolescence as a means of creating drama, and to appeal to
teenage cinema-goers. This emotional content has been used by countless films since
the highpoint of Hughes’s teen genre films in the mid-1980s.
Not all films in the genre depict a turbulent relationship between the generations, but
several use language as a means of separating the generations. As with the examples
from The Breakfast Club, the use of slang can be essential in separating one
generation from another. The use of slang or ‘teen-speak’ in the five key films listed,
serves to place these films apart from the rest of the genre. The difference between
the teenage characters and the older generations can be highlighted by the use of
contemporary slang. Language can be used to distinguish who is young and who is
too old, who is popular and who is an outsider. In this chapter’s case study, language
is a means of dividing the characters along these lines, but also forms speech
communities, evoking Michael Halliday’s theoretical model, where the use of
language and linguistic modification represent the changing dynamics within
established groups of characters.
6
In The Breakfast Club, Hughes has a brief cameo playing Brian’s father.
71
Clueless is an important example of the teen genre as it abides by the genre’s
conventions, narrative structures and character archetypes, it was also produced by a
large Hollywood studio (Paramount) for a mainstream audience. Clueless is also
significant as a progression in the genre, described by Jonathan Bernstein as a
potential ‘Teenpic renaissance’ partly due to the film’s similarity to the teen films of
the previous decade, but with significant alterations. Bernstein suggests that Clueless
is modifying the genre’s archetypes, and allowing them to be more complex than in
previous examples: ‘Heathers through the looking glass, Clueless asked the
revolutionary question: what if the pretty, rich, popular girl wasn’t the evil witch?
What if she… saw it as her civic duty to spread the wealth of her knowledge,
friendship and taste?’ (Bernstein 1997, 220). This combines the idea of Clueless as a
turning point of the genre with the realisation that this film is changing our
expectations of a relatively conventional genre.7 Timothy Shary discusses the same
period of production as an evolution rather than a ‘renaissance’:
By the mid-’90s, the latest expansion of youth movie production
emerged, especially in the wake of highly successful and/or
provocative youth films such as Clueless, Kids, Dangerous Minds
(all 1995), William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Scream, and
Girls Town (all 1996)... The youth population at the end of the
century was clearly witness to a new wave of films that catered to
their interests and explored their images, and these films were and
will continue to be undoubtedly influenced by and built upon the
evolution of cinematic youth representations in previous
generations (Shary 2002, 10).
Shary includes Clueless in a list of equally successful and interesting films from the
mid-1990s, but notes the relevance of the clear influence from earlier examples of the
genre, and especially how films such as Heckerling’s Fast Times at Ridgemont High
7
Bernstein discusses two contrasting films, Clueless and Kids (Larry Clark, 1995). Kids uses a far
more naturalistic style of performance and a documentary-esque shooting style, whilst discussing
subjects such as under-age sex, and AIDS.
72
and Hughes’s The Breakfast Club use familiar character types to reinforce the
location and hierarchies of the school experience (Shary 2002, 31-32). Bernstein’s
comparison of Clueless with the films of the 1980s in the above quote – Bernstein,
like Shary, refers to the work of Hughes and Heckerling – compliments the film for
capturing the spirit of that cinematic period. Clueless and its mainstream peers are
happy to display this influence and to wrap themselves in the genre’s conventions.
Here Shary lists Clueless amongst its contemporaries, which includes less orthodox
examples of the teen genre as well as the more mainstream studio film, drawing
comparisons based on their significance to the audience and their intelligence as
pieces of cinema history. Shary notes how these films build upon the films previous
generations, making direct references to the evolution of the genre through the
narratives, generic hybridity and character types. The history of the genre informs
each new example, with familiar codes and conventions appearing to reinforce the
narrative of each new film.
The use of language in Clueless is as influential as its use of teen genre iconography.
The film demonstrates its awareness of the genre and its conventions and highlights
them in the dialogue. The teenagers’ linguistic style is familiar from other teen genre
films but the film’s dialogue (as with the dialogue of teen films that followed, such as
Scream) plays with the form, making the dialogue more noticeably stylised than in
the previous generation of films. By noting these films as significant, Shary provides
a foundation for the study of the contemporary teen genre. A genre that crosses
boundaries of production and ideas of national cinema and that confronts a range of
issues within their narratives – from identity anxiety, class, money, and the dangers of
unprotected sex in the modern day, as well as the classic tale of star-crossed lovers.
73
The films that Shary highlights to emphasise his argument about the resurgence of
interest and development of the teen genre during the 1990s, range from mainstream
Hollywood films such as the romantic comedy of Clueless and the tale of an
inspirational teacher in Dangerous Minds (John N. Smith, 1995)8, to the independent
art house films Kids (Larry Clark, 1995) and Girls Town (Jim McKay, 1996), and two
films that draw on familiar source material be it canonical literature in William
Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet (Baz Luhrmann, 1996), or Wes Craven’s return to
the sub-genre of the teen horror slasher film with Scream. As Shary’s title,
Generation Multiplex suggests his concern is with films that were widely seen or
extensively discussed, therefore his work deals predominantly with popular cinema.
The six choices demonstrate the range of the teen genre at the time, which deal with
various social issues – the children of low income households choosing between
education and the dangerous, but profitable, influences of crime, the threat of AIDS,
and teenage pregnancy – as well as adapting existing texts and teen sub-genres for the
modern audience – Shakespeare and Jane Austen, as well as the slasher film and the
role of the inspirational teacher in the classroom. The films Shary highlights here are
each in turn critically commended, controversial, and iconographic in utilising and
adapting the conventions of the teen genre.
Numerous studies of Clueless discuss the film as an adaptation of Austen’s work, and
by reading through the various analyses there is a clear divide between those in
favour of the film and those against. Many of these articles are by academics from
literature departments and focus on the issue of adaptation more than the filmic
8
The narrative of a teacher trying to form a connection with a classroom of difficult students has been
present in the teen genre since its earliest examples, especially Blackboard Jungle in 1955.
74
qualities. In contrast to this, the discussions of Clueless as a genre film tend to ignore
its status as a literary adaptation. Although the intention of this analysis is not to
discuss the issue of adaptation too deeply it is impossible to ignore this factor
entirely.9 Many of the analyses of Clueless as an adaptation discuss how the film has
dealt with the issues of social class raised in the original novel, changing from
nineteenth century Britain to late twentieth century America. Carol M. Dole has noted
of Clueless that, ‘The skewering of the moneyed classes, however good-natured, is
characteristic of the American privileging of middle-class values’ (Dole 1998, 73).
Some of the film’s characters see their social position – and more specifically, the
social position of their parents – as allowing them to do as they please, which causes
several rifts in the school community. The clearest divide between the students –
especially between the students with money and those without – arises through
attitude, and specifically their attitude towards others. The social and class divisions
seen in Emma are somewhat replicated here, as the characters without money offer
friendship to everyone, whilst those with money are unwilling to be associated with
those they consider unworthy.
The favouring of middle-class attitudes within the narrative keeps to the atmosphere
and attitude of the film, which has no interest in angering its audience or in making a
political argument.10 Dole continues, ‘In reality, public high schools give many
Americans one of their few opportunities of associating closely with people of
different classes … but popular culture treatments of high school social stratification
tend to disguise class as clique’ (Dole 1998, 73). This is as true of Clueless as it is of
In my own view, the film is a rather successful adaptation of Austen’s work, as the narrative structure
and the characters themselves retain a sense of the original novel, and I return to this point later in the
analysis.
10
In an interview with Amy Heckerling featured on the DVD (‘Creative Writing’ Clueless: Whatever
Edition, 2005), she describes her desire to make ‘a happy movie’.
9
75
many other films of the genre. As Austen’s novel features characters from different
strata of society in the village of Highbury, Clueless depicts the contrasting strata of
popularity in the society of the school. The depiction of student hierarchies is a
familiar aspect of the school film, though it is often difficult to distinguish each
character’s financial background – partly due to the fashion and aesthetic style
adopted by the various cliques – within the school context unless it is specifically
noted in the dialogue.
In the decade that followed Clueless the teen genre came to be represented by a series
of intelligent, sophisticated and self-aware films, with many of them taking
inspiration from or directly adapted from canonical literature.11 By constantly
referring to the genre’s conventions, the teen genre used its self-awareness to its
advantage. By presenting their influences up-front in the films, the genre adapted
itself to its audience. According to Shary the teenage audience watched the films
created for them, films that attempted to give a fair and contemporary representation
of the demographic, whilst also giving an accurate view of their cultural interests and
understanding. By referring to contemporary popular culture, and then
acknowledging the reference, a film or programme would reflect the audience’s
recognition of the reference. Within Clueless, the constant references to popular
culture – including music, cinema, television and other teenage recreational activities
– locates the film in the present day of 1995, and gives the audience the opportunity
to connect with the various characters.
10 Things I Hate About You (Gil Junger, 1999), Cruel Intentions (Roger Kumble, 1999), She’s All
That (Robert Iscove, 1999), etc.
11
76
Case Study - Clueless
The use of language in Clueless creates a relationship between the characters by
placing them in specific social groups and within a specific generation. The language
style is significant from the perspective of group membership, age and location
(within a time period and geographically). Several films in the teen genre use
contemporary slang to provide verisimilitude for the characters and to emphasise their
age and generation. Clueless calls attention to the language of teenagers, in many
scenes the teen-speak is positioned as unusual when it is spoken in the presence of
adults who pause to interpret what has been said. When the film opened in 1995,
several reviews referred directly to the use of slang in the film, and several magazines
presented a glossary of terms to allow the audience to keep up with the characters’
dialogue.12 The film’s linguistic style was created by Heckerling, who combined
research into twentieth century youth slang, with the linguistic styles of the actors
themselves in the final script. According to interviews with Heckerling, her intention
was to treat the characters with respect and to provide them with dialogue which
flowed clearly, and demonstrated their ability to express themselves creatively.
Heckerling also wanted to create a language style that would be specific to each
character, and reflect their personal attitude and interests.13 Each character’s language
expresses their individuality, but also creates communities amongst the teenagers as
well as highlighting the divisions between them.
12
One example can be found in the British film magazine, Empire (No.77, November 1995): 4.
Notes from the short documentary ‘Language Arts’, featured amongst the special features on the
DVD, Clueless: Whatever Edition, (2005).
13
77
In his analysis of language genres, Bakhtin discussed the realisation of language as
countless individual spoken or written ‘utterances’ from individuals in all walks and
arenas of life:
These utterances reflect the specific conditions and goals of each
such area not only through their content (thematic) and linguistic
style, that is, the selection of the lexical, phraseological, and
grammatical resources of the language but above all through their
compositional structure. All three of these aspects – thematic
content, style, and compositional structure – are inseparably linked
to the whole of the utterance and are equally determined by the
specific nature of the particular sphere of communication (Bakhtin
2002, 60).
The utterances within the film are a combination of the elements that Bakhtin
discusses. The nature of the sphere of communication in Clueless is affected
primarily by the location of the dialogue within a fictional context. The relationship
between the phrase and the elements noted by Bakhtin (theme, style and the structure
of composition) change by analysing them within the context of a film script rather
than in day to day conversation. The film uses language primarily to create a pleasant
and credible world, and to capture the interest of the audience. The characters’
dialogue here has to reflect the reality of teen language in the mid-1990s, and so
presents the more familiar language of teenagers (the common use of words such as
‘cool’, ‘totally’ and ‘like’) amongst examples of more creative language (phrases
such as ‘couch commando’ and ‘surfing the crimson wave’), in order to push the film
to more lyrical and literary places than one would expect. Daniel Chandler refers to
the understanding and use of figurative language that ‘constitute a rhetorical code,
and understanding this code is part of what it means to be a member of the culture in
which it is employed’ (Chandler 2002, 124). The dialogue of Clueless is
understandable; however there are specific terms or phrases which need to be
78
interpreted, either for a new character arriving at the school or for the audience.
However, as the film proceeds, the character and the audience-members become
habituated to them, and the meaning is intuited even though the phrasing may be
unfamiliar.
The thematic content, style and compositional structure of language in this case study
include what the characters discuss, how these discussions are phrased and the
conversational patterns used. Furthermore, the themes of conversation in an
individual teen film are recurring across the genre and with each new film the
conversations are refreshed but will revisit key themes such as relationships,
schoolwork and family. The style of the dialogue in this case is a heightened one, a
representation of the assumed teenager’s voice using recognisable elements of slang
and popular culture to colour the language and provide a sense of period and location.
The structure of the conversations – be they in the classroom, the home or amongst
peers – are a clear back and forth between the characters conveying the purpose of the
dialogue in the narrative and demonstrating the characters’ individuality. The
structure and clarity of the dialogue reinforces the language’s position as dialogue in
a film rather than a spontaneous conversation.
Bakhtin’s discussion of language in the novel can be applied to the discussion of film
as demonstrated by Robert Stam, with the levels of meaning in each utterance divided
between the intentions of the author, the intention of the character speaking, and the
understanding of the audience. The use of a specific linguistic style featured in
promotional material around the film’s release could also be a means of targeting a
79
certain demographic, attracting some whilst deterring others.14 By considering
Bakhtin’s theory in the terms of teen language, especially within the context of the
school, the examination of the utterance is significant. Each teenage character
individualises their statements, but each statement evokes and reinforces the linguistic
style of the film’s teenage community. The language use of these teenage characters
creates a speech community which unites and defines them within a specific
generation and time.
The use of teen language reflects the attitude of the film, as Clueless acknowledges
that there is a difference between the language of the teenagers and that of the older
generations, but prioritises the language of the teenagers.15 The film is also willing to
use this language to create humour, with some inventive and outrageous phrases in
amongst the more familiar terminology, such as the use of the apparently politically
correct term ‘hymenally-challenged’ to describe the state of virginity. There is no
attempt to use language in order to make the teenage characters seem foolish, and
even if a character’s dialogue indicates a certain cultural community outside of the
realms of the film, their next line could easily bring them back into the fold of the
film’s speech community. In one example the character of Murray (an African
American boy in the group) refers to his girlfriend Dionne as ‘Woman’, she objects.
His next line explains his position on the use of the term – ‘Street slang is an
increasingly valid form of expression. Most of the feminine pronouns do have
mocking, but not necessarily a misogynist undertone’. His verbal dexterity and
eloquence here undermines the negative aspects of his earlier dialogue and indicates
The trailer for Clueless also promotes the film based on Heckerling’s previous work as the director
of Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
15
The film is concerned with the lives of the teenage characters, they are the protagonists, and
therefore it is theirs that is the dominant language.
14
80
an intelligence and understanding of his appropriation of a known style of linguistic
expression. The inclusion of a line to justify the use of street slang by a wealthy black
teenager acknowledges the difference in Murray’s image and his social position
demonstrating his adoption of a specific identity despite his distance from those
whose identity he emulates. In the films from the early 1990s such as Boyz n the
Hood (John Singleton, 1991) and Menace II Society (Albert Hughes and Allen
Hughes, 1993), representations of life in the inner-city of Los Angeles filled with
violence, gun crime and drug abuse were screened; and alongside the rise of urban
black music in the 1980s and 1990 certain styles of speech were brought into
mainstream youth slang. Though Murray may attempt to emulate the language and
slang – though it is a very tame approximation – his obviously privileged lifestyle and
attendance of Beverly Hills High School, present a heavy contrast with these images.
In their analysis of Bakhtin’s theory of the utterance, Katerina Clark and Michael
Holquist stated:
Statements in everyday life depend for their meaning on two
factors. One factor is the formal features of the utterance itself,
which might be called the text of the statement. But this is never
enough. In addition, such statements depend on the context, the
situation in which they are uttered, not merely the verbalization of
the utterance itself (Clark and Holquist 1984, 203).
The Bakhtinian utterance requires content and context, the meaning of one added to
by the significance of the other. In the context of the teen genre the relevance of
locations such as the school campus or the family home inspire a sense of
appropriateness of the linguistic form of each utterance. As Pujolar argued in his
Bakhtinian analysis of the communication amongst youths in Barcelona, there is a
81
correlation between someone’s speech and their location. The teen genre also features
scenes of contrasting emotional contexts including scenes of romance, or of conflict
with authority, each one influencing the character’s linguistic choices. Clark and
Holquist also describe the significance of intonation, with the combined significance
of what has been said, as well as how it has been stated, conveying Bakhtin’s interest
in the dual nature of the utterance (Clark and Holquist 1984, 207). The influence of
emotion on an individual utterance provides an insight into the identities of different
characters, demonstrating individuality in the contrasting reactions to the same
provocation.
The film’s teen language is also ruled by several elements: location, the age and time
period of the characters, the purpose of the narrative, and the context of the dialogue.
In this film, the characters are not simply teenagers; they are teenagers in California
in 1995. The dialogue has to have a contemporary feel to succeed – especially as the
language acts as a means of dividing characters – and to be utterly appropriate for one
group, so much so that it is instantly noticeable if the language is used incorrectly.
Here the language is operating with a purpose, separating the speech community from
the other characters in the film, and to forward the narrative. Along with elements of
character, the language separates some characters and unites others, but positioning
characters inside or outside of the speech community. This language works
effectively for the characters within their natural surroundings – the school, the home,
and at social events – but fails them in situations that move them outside of these
comfortable and familiar locations.
82
As discussed by Pujolar in the previous chapter, the relationship between identity and
social context, and the linguistic alterations made by individuals as they move from
one social domain to another, defines and transforms social relationships as well as
group and individual identities. Linguistic style alters from one situation to another as
one wouldn’t speak to an employer in the same way as one would with friends, and
one wouldn’t speak to a police officer in the same voice as one might use when
speaking to a young child. When adapting language to suit a situation, it is necessary
to be aware when the situation has changed, and when one form of language becomes
inappropriate. The change to an inappropriate situation can vary; either the language
of a specific speech community being used when away from the group, or the
language of the community being used by a non-member. In both of these situations
there is a feeling of unease as the language choice and the situation fail to compliment
each other.
There are a number of these moments in Clueless, as the teenagers fail to adapt their
language to the change of situation, or when addressing new people, and giving the
wrong impression (which will be discussed in depth in the chapter). As noted by
Pujolar, there is no sense in using a style of language when away from the suitable
situation, but the linguistic choices made by these teenage characters are not driven
by logic. For this community their linguistic means of expression is an essential
aspect of their identities and therefore remains stable no matter what situation they
find themselves in. Despite the fact that they are able to utilise several genres of
language – such as letter writing, legal jargon, public speech, or urban slang, each
83
requiring their own form, approach and structure – their foundational language (in
this case American-English) is constant.16
It is possible to think of the teenagers’ language as a specific form of language, or as
a dialect which is dependant on age. Halliday discussed the concept of social dialects,
‘A social dialect is a dialect – a configuration of phonetic, phonological, grammatical
and lexical features – that is associated with, and stands as a symbol for, some more
or less objectively definable social group’ (Halliday 1978, 159). The idea of a dialect
that characterises a group or community is appropriate in this context, as it is an
effective summary of teen-speak. In these terms this form of language is a direct
means of identifying the teenage group’s form of expression. When one thinks of
teenagers and their means of communication, numerous fictional characters come to
mind that inhabit a certain way of speaking and behaving. Halliday’s statement
acknowledges the idea that language changes between groups and events, and that
this is a part of organising everyday life. Different professions require a fluency in
languages that would be alien to anyone outside that profession, such as medical staff,
computer technicians, or academics.
By adapting Bakhtin’s theories directly to cinema, Robert Stam has noted, ‘Bakhtin
sees every utterance, including artistic utterances, as social and historical “events”
resonating not only with their actual time and context but also with the echoes and
reverberations of their past usages’ (Stam 1989, 7). The field of genre studies is
constantly discussing the numerous conventions that shape each specific genre film,
and as Stam states, each utterance, or each film in the case of genre studies, is full of
Bakhtin stated, ‘For the writer-craftsman the genre serves as an external template, but the great artist
awakens the semantic possibilities that lie within it’ (Bakhtin 2002, 5).
16
84
echoes of the past. No utterance of film is ever entirely original. Thomas Schatz
describes the genre film as a combination of filmic devices in a predetermined world.
Narrative components are significant in any film, but in a genre film ‘these
components have prior significance as elements of some generic formula, and the
viewer’s negotiation of a genre film thus involves weighing the film’s variations
against the genre’s preordained, value-laden narrative system’ (Schatz 1981, 10). The
past uses are key to the new utterance or film to allow understanding and to create
sense and meaning from the new composition which comes with each new film.
In this case study, and in this cinematic genre, there are numerous conventions to
follow, and numerous stock characters appear (see Shary’s description of The
Breakfast Club above). The audience is able to recognise these characters and can
build certain expectations of how the film will develop. The responsibility of the
film’s creators is to use the audience’s knowledge and understanding of the genre,
and their expectations of the film that has been built on this understanding, and then
produce something unexpected using the genre’s conventions. Clueless belongs to the
sub-genre of the school film, and the characters in the film include students and
teachers as well as the students’ families. As with many examples of this sub-genre,
the characters appear to be from a range of financial backgrounds, even though at
times this is difficult to detect. The film is also an adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel
Emma, and uses the characters from the novel as a foundation for the characters in the
film – not only amongst the main group of teenagers but also the surrounding
characters. By looking at individual characters we can see how their identities and the
language use position them in relation to the film’s dominant group led by the main
character, Cher.
85
When Cher and her friend Dionne, introduce a new student, Tai, to the school, they
refer directly to the cliques:
Cher: That is Alana’s group over there. They do the TV station.
They think that’s the most important thing on Earth. And that’s
the Persian mafia. You can’t hang with them unless you own a
BMW. And there’s Elton in the white vest, and all the most
popular boys in the school … If you make the decision to date a
high school boy, they are the only acceptable ones.17
Every social group has its own characteristics but apart from this sequence the
members of each group are only seen in classroom scenes or at parties filling the
background.18 These background characters exist only as stereotypes, and
representations of a specific type of behaviour. In addition to this, the cliques can
represent the lower social classes. Within this film, and several others of the genre,
the lowest class is the ‘Loadies’, the students who spend much of their time involved
in recreational drug use.19 This group is considered a joke, and an easy target for
other groups within the school. The only character of this group who is developed
into a full character is Travis, who becomes involved in the romantic confusion at the
centre of the narrative.20
Bakhtin notes the individuality of an utterance: ‘Any utterance – oral or written,
primary or secondary, and in the any sphere of communication – is individual and
These boys are members of Cher’s social group. All quotes are taken from the screenplay of
Clueless by Amy Heckerling.
18
The film 10 Things I Hate About You uses a similar series of scenes depicting the introduction of a
new student to the school, and to the variety of cliques that are distinctively dressed and are
recognisable in the background of later classroom and party scenes.
19
See also: slackers, stoners, burners, reef-worms, etc.
20
Travis is the equivalent character to Robert Martin in Emma, a tenant farmer who is considered an
unsuitable match for Emma’s new friend Harriet.
17
86
therefore can reflect the individuality of the speaker (or writer); that is, possess
individual style’ (Bakhtin 2002, 63). Clueless is a film when the utterances within the
teenage characters’ are highly stylised creating a standard language to which the
group conforms, however as individuals their language use demonstrates individuality
through references to different spheres of communication or examples of popular
culture. The effect of being an individual can exclude some characters from joining
the main group as the character must appear to fit in with the film’s central group and
an overt allegiance to another social clique can cause them to stand out too far. As
discussed earlier in this chapter, Murray may use a more urban style of slang at times
to prove his independence from his relationship with Dionne, but his behaviour and
linguistic ability are within the conventions of the main group (he is popular, wealthy,
expensively dressed and uses the language of the speech community). Travis differs
from Murray because of his association with the Loadies (an undesirable association)
and though he uses the language of the speech community as well as the others it is
when he drops his Loadie persona that he can effectively belong to the group.
In the following section, I analyse some of the film’s leading characters and how their
language use positions them in relation to the main group. Although language use is
enough to place a character as an outsider some characters need additional factors to
define them fully. However the individual’s relationship with Cher, the film’s
protagonist, can affect their position in the film.
The teen language constant – Cher
The film’s protagonist and narrator is a happy, wealthy, American girl. Her best
friends are rather like herself, and very little interferes with her amiable life. The
87
opening sentence of Emma is equally appropriate in describing Cher Horowitz as it
was for Emma Woodhouse, ‘handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home
and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and
had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her’
(Austen 2003, 5).21 It is Cher’s voice-over that opens the film and introduces the
audience to her daily life, and therefore it is Cher’s voice and language use –
reinforced by her role as narrator – that introduces the primary linguistic style of the
film.22 This is the linguistic style of Cher and her friends, the film’s main group of
characters. This is the language of the speech community and is part of the
generation’s means of expression regardless of social clique. Cher’s group includes
her best friend Dionne, Dionne’s boyfriend Murray, Elton and Amber, as well as
some other less prominent members who have little or no dialogue. This group is
presented as the most popular members of the school and as the centre of the student
population.
The references to popular culture throughout the teenagers’ dialogue give a sense of
period and highlight the generational gap between the school students, their families
and their teachers. The language of the speech community draws attention to itself,
whereas the language of the adults is far less noticeable. As with many films in the
teen genre, it is the language of the teenagers that is marked as different and not the
language of the adults. Other characters are in contrast with Cher, and will be
analysed as such, be this due to their upbringing in another geographical area, their
21
The only difference is that Cher is only sixteen at the end of the film.
As the teenage group are the centre of the film, I suggest that in terms of a linguistic hierarchy, it is
the teenage linguistic style that is the film’s primary language, higher in status than the language of the
surrounding characters. Therefore, within Clueless the teen-speak of these characters is the ‘correct’
form of language, heard most often within the film and by the largest number of characters, and that
any variation away from this style of speech instantly positions a character outside the main group and
speech community.
22
88
age or their use of an oppositional lexicon and frame of reference. In each instance,
they are positioned as different to Cher and it is through their interactions with Cher
that they attain a place in the film’s central community.
The linguistic style of Cher and her friends (the dominant speech community) is a
combination of familiar Californian ‘Valley-speak’ and the politically correct
terminology that became so prominent in the 1990s.23 In one scene Tai compliments
her new friends for their apparently mature vocabulary (‘Wow! You guys talk like
grown-ups’), and though in a later scene Cher is shown to have a strong vocabulary –
she describes The Ren and Stimpy Show (1991-96) as ‘Way existential’ – she does not
always understand what she’s saying:
Josh: Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?
Cher: No, why? Do I sound like I do?
Cher’s interest here is in appearing intelligent rather than developing her actual
understanding and what is important is that her words sound right. At the beginning
of the film we see Cher succeeding in improving her school grades by convincing her
teachers to change them without her having to re-do the work. She is also praised for
this skill by her father. Cher is skilful with her use of language and can use different
genres of language easily in order to get her own way. She demonstrates this proudly
to her father, Mel, who is himself a manipulator of language in his work in the legal
profession. Cher’s adoption of Mel’s linguistic skills may be partly due to the lack of
a contrasting influence in the home. Cher is the child of a single-parent, her mother
Valley-speak is the term for the linguistic style used by young people – predominantly female – of
the San Fernando Valley in California. It features constant uses of words such as, ‘like’ and ‘totally’. It
is also famously used in the song ‘Valley Girl’ written and performed by Frank and Moon Unit Zappa,
in 1982.
23
89
having died during her early childhood. Mel is a constant influence in her life, and
despite his other marriages, referred to in passing in the dialogue; these have been
brief, leaving only a vague memory of any maternal influence. The constant presence
of Mel as a father, and the apparent dominance of work in his life – supported by
scenes of Mel and his colleagues working in the family home – invite the assumption
that his conversation is filled with references to his job, the specific jargon, and the
style in which this language is used. Cher has absorbed this language through years of
exposure to her father’s work-talk, and incorporated it into her everyday speech.
The life of privilege that Cher has experienced – living in a palatial home, with
servants and great wealth – as well as her verbal abilities, has given her great
confidence and the self-assurance to protest when she considers herself to have been
wronged by those in authority. When she receives grades that she considers unfair,
Cher applies a different approach when approaching each teacher in order to
challenge the disputed grade. In the case of her feminist PE teacher, she claims to
have been treated badly by a boyfriend; she offers to volunteer for a charity to another
teacher; and in the most extreme case, plays matchmaker between two single teachers
– so that their happiness in the new relationship will be reflected in their marking of
student assignments. Cher adapts her performance with each teacher, choosing a
different approach to suit the teacher’s personal interests and politics. She also uses a
different tone when performing her case, and uses flattery effectively to reach her
goal.
As well as verbal language, Cher uses the written word to aid her cause. In one scene
she has composed a love letter as part of her matchmaking. Cher understands this
90
genre of language, and understands the type of language needed to create a romantic
effect (the letter contains a quotation from Shakespeare’s eighteenth Sonnet24) and
though Cher may not understand precisely where the words have originated from, she
is aware of them as ‘like a famous quote’ that she discovered in the academic study
guide Cliffs Notes.25 Cher and Dionne’s misunderstanding of the origin of the quote
is used to create humour, and though this lack of awareness could be seen as a
negative, representing the ignorance of contemporary teenagers, the quote is still used
appropriately as a means of conveying the emotion of love. The scene raises another
question, that is: if Cher is aware of the quotation and knows that it is well known and
important, and then uses it effectively in the correct context – the love letter receives
a positive reaction – isn’t this enough? We see her demonstrating a level of cultural
understanding in the correct application of the quotation, and without needing a
complete understanding of its origin.
Cher makes several references to culture in her day to day vocabulary, and combines
references to high culture with references to more populist culture. Not only does
Cher make these references, but she has a consistent understanding of their meaning.
For example when she and Tai are discussing another girl:
Tai: Do you think she’s pretty?
Cher: No, she’s a full-on Monet.
Tai: What’s a Monet?
‘Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May… but thy eternal summer shall not fade’.
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/sonnets/18.html (website visited 01/08/2011).
25
Cliffs notes are a well-known study aid, especially in America. The official Cliffs Notes website
claims that they are ‘the fastest way to learn’. They offer a breakdown of the text into its most
important elements including the most famous quotes, as well as a summary of the text’s significance.
On Sonnet 18: ‘One of the best known of Shakespeare’s sonnets, Sonnet 18 is memorable for the
skilful and varied presentation of subject matter, in which the poet’s feelings reach a level of rapture
unseen in the previous sonnets. The poet here abandons his quest for the youth to have a child, and
instead glories in the youth’s beauty’ www.cliffsnotes.com
24
91
Cher: It’s like the painting, see? From far away, it’s ok, but up
close it’s a big old mess.
In addition to this Cher uses knowledge of art to describe Tai (‘she looks like one of
those Botticelli chicks’), and once again she demonstrates a basic understanding of
the artist’s style and general aesthetic. The use of cultural references within day to
day dialogue as seen here demonstrates Cher’s knowledge of the basic associations of
the artists’ names, without having to know anything further about them. These
examples are an extension of the idea represented by Cher at this stage in the film –
and what she eventually overcomes – that the image is more important than the truth,
and that it is more important to give the impression of knowledge than to have
knowledge.
Another linguistic genre that Cher adapts in her daily language is the legal jargon that
she has picked up from her father. There are several examples of Cher fighting her
case in school by using recognisable legal phrases that we would usually associate
with a courtroom scene:
Cher: Well, some teachers are trying to low-ball me, Daddy; and
I know how you say, “Never accept a first offer”, so I figure
these grades are just a jumping off point to start negotiations.
Cher has adapted the language and attitude of the courtroom that she has learnt from
Mel, to the context of the classroom. Instead of accepting the situations she’s been
presented with by her teachers, she follows her father’s example and tries to negotiate
her way to a situation she finds preferable. In order to manipulate situations to her
advantage Cher modifies her language to that associated with the legal profession,
applying the appropriate terminology to signify the change in the genre of the
92
conversation. She is happy to use the conventions of reasonable debate in order to
argue for her own unreasonable demands, either to improve her grades or to avoid
exertion in a physical education lesson:
Cher: I object! Do you recall the dates of these alleged tardies?
Cher: Miss Stoeger, that machine is just a lawsuit waiting to
happen!
Cher’s use of this language is effective, and her pride and confidence is high, as she
has succeeded in getting her own way on every occasion. These examples not only
demonstrate Cher’s ability to evoke her father’s position in the legal profession, they
are also, in the tradition of the teen genre, challenges to authority. Cher is in part
attempting to manipulate her teachers to improve her grades, but she is also critiquing
the authority of the school and the adults who are able to influence her life. She uses
the language of the legal system, a socially higher power than that held by mere
teachers, to possibly threaten litigious action against the school. Though not serious,
Cher’s speed in applying marked – and exaggerated – legal terminology demonstrates
her adeptness in moving between different genres of language, moving from student
to prosecutor in a brief exchange of dialogue.
The greatest change in Cher’s life occurs when she ventures away from school, and
experiences feelings and emotions beyond the superficial. The turning point in her
understanding of the world is her first moment of failure – that being when she fails
her driving test – and more importantly when she is unable to argue her way out of
the situation. Cher uses the community’s language during her unsuccessful driving
test and fails to elicit a positive reaction. As Cher fails one challenge after another in
93
this scene, she continues to use the same vocal tone and vocabulary that would be
appropriate and successful in school or within the community. To begin with she acts
as innocently (‘My bad’), she then tries to apologise for driving into another car
(‘Should I write them a note?’), and after failing the test she starts to construct an
argument to account for this failure and why these factors should not count against
her (‘I’m kind of having a personal problem…I drive really good usually…Isn’t there
somebody else I can talk to?’) , which is the strategy she successfully used to improve
her grades at school earlier in the film. In this example however, Cher does not only
fail socially in a test that will affect her life, she also suffers a personal failure when a
talent that has always served her well – her ability to manipulate language for her
own benefit – fails for the first time. Cher is forced to learn that she needs to work to
succeed, rather than expect everything in life to come easily.
A heteroglossic analysis of Cher’s language demonstrates the different levels of
understanding between Cher herself, the characters around her, and the film’s
potential audience. Though her linguistic style is at first challenging to an audience
with its variety of slang terms, it is quickly understandable. However due to the
references Cher makes to other characters and to popular culture, there are moments
when the audience understands a situation more clearly than Cher herself –
specifically in the situation with Christian. Both the audience and her peers are aware
of Christian’s sexuality long before Cher, partly from the information that she has
imparted, and partly from the formal visual construction of scenes in which Christian
appears.
94
Cher is the guiding voice for the film’s audience and is also the lead voice of the
group. As the film’s main protagonist she is positioned as the head of the speech
community, and demonstrates linguistic savvy throughout. However, by the end of
the film she seems willing to relinquish this dominant role for the sake of the group.
She is able to admit to her mistakes and becomes less controlling of those around her.
The film’s final scene is set at the wedding ceremony of the teachers whose
relationship Cher instigated. It shows Cher as part of a couple with Josh, surrounded
by other couples, rather than the teen group in its entirety, indicating a move towards
maturity and adulthood signified by being located away from the domestic and
educational environments, as well as by the scene’s romantic context. Cher doesn’t
dominate the scene and barely speaks, allowing her friends to lead the conversation
instead of taking the central focus herself. 26
Cher is undoubtedly the dominant female of a female dominated film. The narrative is
entirely driven by the female characters’ actions whereas male characters play largely
supporting roles as existing or potential love interests and occasional voices of
reason, contrasting with the girls’ relative emotional naivety. The female characters
have greater authority in the emotional relationships, with Cher positioning herself as
arch-manipulator and matchmaker, Dionne exercising control over her boyfriend and
Tai embracing her sudden rise in the school hierarchy. Despite Cher’s somewhat
subdued behaviour during in the final sequence of the film, her status as the leading
voice is retained through the use of voiceover which once again connects Cher to the
audience.
26
Cher is positioned on the left of a medium shot facing Dionne (centre) and Tai (right) and listening
attentively as they describe their ideal weddings. Cher and Josh are positioned centrally at the table,
but the group discussions are shot as two medium shots – one capturing the female characters and the
other the male. It is only after the others leave the table that Cher and Josh share a two shot
emphasising their union as a couple.
95
The new student – Tai
The high school film is notable for its representation of social hierarchies, and the
position of each character within this system. The lowest positions in this hierarchy
are reserved for those who are considered undesirable to their affiliation to the wrong
social cliques and the new students who are yet to find their place in the school. In
Clueless, language also plays a part in locating characters in the hierarchy. The first
new student to be introduced is Tai, who, upon her arrival, appears to be more akin
stylistically to the school’s lower cliques. Cher, as queen of the popular students,
decides to use her popularity for a good cause by making over Tai’s identity so that
she may fit in effectively with the rest of the Cher’s group. Cher and Dionne redesign
Tai by changing her clothes, make up and attitude to life, and lead her into new social
circles and into situations where Tai feels less comfortable. However, they believe
that they are working for the good by attempting to improve Tai’s situation as well as
improving Tai herself.
Once Tai’s image has been altered to the more homogenised style of her peers, Cher
sets about altering Tai’s accent and vocabulary – by learning a new word every day
and working them into conversation – so that she can give a good impression before
joining the group. In other words, Tai’s language use signifies her position as an
outsider, and it must be regulated – to Cher’s standards – in order for her to be fully
accepted. Tai’s strong New York accent,27 as well as her tendency to misunderstand
the sophisticated linguistic style of Cher and her friends shows her to be a rather
innocent character. As she becomes more familiar with her environment, and the
27
Articles on the film describe Tai’s accent as being from New York (Dole 1998, 74).
96
forms of expression used by the speech community her innocence fades. The
linguistic change is another way of altering Tai so that she is more acceptable in
Cher’s world, and though during the course of the film her accent softens, there is
little change in her style of speaking:
Tai (at the start of the film): Cher, I don’t wanna do this any
more, and my buns, they don’t feel nothin’ like steel.
Tai (at the end of the film): Cher, you’ve been nothing but
super-duper nice to me.
Tai’s language contains several examples of child-like phrases such as ‘super-duper’,
‘his you-know-what’, and initially asks numerous questions, and seeks Cher and
Dionne’s advice and wisdom on various issues. Despite speaking knowledgeably
about sex and drugs, Tai is positioned as innocent and a character to be moulded
linguistically, in appearance and in attitude. Tai becomes a part of Cher’s community
(speech and social) through her developing friendship with Cher over an extended
period, and by following Cher’s advice on style and attitude.
Tai becomes hugely popular amongst her fellow students after surviving a dangerous
encounter at the shopping mall.28 These factors lift her position in the school which
alters her personality making her haughty and removes the innocence that was part of
her initial charm which drew Cher to her in the first place. As Tai is pulled away from
her original interests and image she loses her appeal, and when she finally rejects her
new popular identity that original charm returns. Several teen films feature a
discussion of the corrupting power of popularity, with many questioning whether it is
28
After meeting some boys at the mall, they playfully suspend Tai over a high railing on an upper floor
in order to frighten her, before she is ‘rescued’ by Christian.
97
possible to be popular through acts of kindness instead of cruelty. These examples
often demonstrate that a sudden rise in an individual’s profile and popularity can have
a negative effect upon that character, and that without strong, supportive friendships
absolute popularity can corrupt absolutely.29 Tai moves from timid to assured by
retelling the story of her apparent ‘near-death’ experience at the mall, and through
each retelling the story becomes more elaborate as her confidence grows.
In his study of bilingual youth culture in Barcelona, Joan Pujolar noted that, ‘The
notion of heteroglossia refers to the fact that any language is always stratified into the
forms and meanings constructed by various regional, social, professional or
generational groups that use it’ (Pujolar 2001, 128). The stratification of language in
Clueless is dependant on community membership, and generation and though every
character in the film speaks the same language, English, the different forms of
English are dispersed dependant on who is speaking. Cher and her friends are the
primary group in the film, and it is their form of English that is the dominant form.
The social hierarchy is visible within the characters’ linguistic style, and the
individual character’s ability to interact with the central group and their language
form. As characters join this group they rise through the society of the school. By the
end of the film, Tai can incorporate herself into the group, whilst other characters
maintain their positions as outsiders.
In Generation Multiplex, Shary describes the conventions and familiarity of the
‘school film’, by noting the significance of physical and intellectual traits as a means
of social or academic advancements, ‘for young people without naturally attractive
29
See Heathers and Mean Girls in particular.
98
traits must learn to cultivate whatever characteristics will most successfully earn them
acceptance, unless they can deny the process of acceptance and adopt an alternate
means of gaining self-identity and esteem’ (Shary 2002, 27). Tai’s position in the
school and in the film plays on this idea and her relationship with the other characters
in the film, especially the members of Cher’s group is described here. Shary discusses
the situation within the sub-genre of the school film, and how this sub-genre will
feature at least one character that is eager to be accepted by the school’s most popular
students. These films also present characters that embody the same archetypes time
and again.30 In the case of Tai, the arc of her narrative – from new student to the most
popular girl in school and then to a comfortable member of the community –
combines several elements. Primarily, that her confidence rises as she becomes more
comfortable in the school, and as her new friends train her in the attitude to take
towards the people around her:
Cher: Listen Tai, when we get there make sure Elton sees you,
but don’t say hi first. Look like you’re having fun and you’re
really popular. Talk to someone in his eye line, preferably a guy.
Make him come to you, and find an excuse to leave while he’s
still into the conversation. The key is always have him wanting
more. You got it?
Tai listens carefully to every piece of advice given to her by Cher and Dionne, and
learns quickly how to rise through the social structure of the school. Tai is happy to
change from her original social position to one of greater popularity, and though she
initially bonded quickly with skateboarder Travis – due to shared interests, sense of
humour and dress – under Cher and Dionne’s influence she is willing to move her
affection to a wealthier and more popular boy, Elton. Once Cher has changed Tai’s
The archetypes outlined in Hughes’s The Breakfast Club – the brain, athlete, basket case, princess,
criminal – are consistent throughout the genre, as far back as 1955 and up to the modern day.
30
99
style of clothing early in their friendship, she does not return to her original grunge
look and becomes far more fashion and image conscious. In a scene of conflict
between Tai and Cher towards the end of the film, during which Tai outlines her plan
to seduce Josh (who has been marked in the visual construction of earlier scenes as a
potential love interest for Cher), Tai has become Cher’s reflection, with her phrasing,
attitude towards linguistic manipulation, and attire echoing Cher’s at the start of the
film. The fact that Tai is mimicking Cher’s dress sense indicates that Josh may be
attracted to Cher (at a superficial level at least), and as Cher attempts to improve
herself, Tai is ready and willing to take her place. By moving away from her past
towards the image that Cher has created for her, Tai becomes the extreme version of
Cher, highlighting the worst excesses of her personality.
The use of accent as well as clique as a demonstration of social class is notable in the
character of Tai. From the outset her New York accent allows her to stand out from
the Californians around her. Her voice and her appearance when she arrives at the
school are notably less refined than Cher and her friends, marking her as significantly
different to the sophisticated clear tones of Cher and Dionne. Tai’s movement to the
centre of the group begins through her friendship with Cher but is accelerated by the
incident at the shopping mall. Tai’s voice also takes on greater authority as she takes
on Cher’s language, and as in Stam discussion of the Bakhtinian ‘utterance’, there is
an echo of past usage, combining with the image to create a distorted visual and
verbal echo of Cher’s identity at the start of the film. It is only through the
abandonment of this extreme identity by both girls that they are reunited as friends.
100
Cher’s position at the head of the group has always been due to her popularity, and
though she has great verbal abilities, she is far more innocent and sheltered from
experiences than many of her friends. Unlike Dionne, she has no boyfriend, and
unlike Tai, she has little life experience. Cher speaks her mind, but her knowledge is
primarily theoretical. Cher mentions that she reads extensively for self-improvement
but this acquired knowledge is rarely put into action. Tai is able to surpass Cher’s
position as an advisor to her friends as she is able to speak from a position of
experience thus, whilst Cher can offer advice, Tai can offer empathy and instruction.
Her voice therefore at this stage has greater impact than Cher can achieve. At this
stage Cher is positioned as a girl, whilst Tai is closer to being a woman.
The traits of Tai’s language are consistent throughout the film, with the continuous
use of child-like phrases, and the prominence of questions in her dialogue. What is
interesting in the scene of conflict between Tai and Cher, Tai asks several questions
but answers them herself, no longer needing Cher to guide her. Her sophisticated-self
as seen in this scene is rejected by the film’s conclusion, with the innocence of Tai’s
former persona returning, and a softening of her appearance.
The rejected community member – Travis
Travis is a character of note due to his constant presence in the school and at social
functions, but he is kept apart from the main group due to his position as a member of
an unpopular clique at the school. Travis is a member of the Loadies, a group noted
for their style of dress (scruffy, layered, and loose clothing), their dialogue (usually
unintelligent or inarticulate), and their use of recreational drugs (Travis is the one to
101
bring marijuana joints to a party). This is the group which is treated as the lowest
class in the society of the school:
Cher: Loadies generally hang out on the grassy knoll over there.
Sometimes they come to class and say bonehead things, and we all
laugh, of course. But no respectable girl actually dates them.
The film itself does not categorise this group in terms of social class, but the emphasis
on the fact that they are unrespectable and unsuitable for any popular girl with a
future. Initially Tai could be seen as a member of this group or class as her clothes
and attitude is very similar to Travis’s. However, upon building a friendship with
Cher, Tai is rescued from an association with the Loadies (the school clique that
might otherwise have claimed her), whilst Travis is left to rescue himself and create
his own potential future without the aid of a social benefactress. Beyond his position
in the film as a suitable partner for Tai, Travis’s dialogue is entirely based around his
Loadie persona. He offers out drugs at a party, and makes comments that add to his
image as a humorous but unintelligent student. When he moves towards redemption
of his character his dialogue is again concerned with his drug use but in a discussion
of his entry into a 12-step programme – and an explanation of this new club’s rules –
replacing his previous discussion of active consumption. Once he is redeemed in
Cher’s eyes his dialogue outlines his potential future career, and once he is united
with Tai he takes his place amongst the film’s other ‘boyfriends’, supporting their
partners as a now acceptable character.
Travis’s basic character is recognisable as a version of the likeable ‘school stoner’
that is often featured in the teen genre. He is also a more contemporary version of one
of the most famous examples of this stereotype, Jeff Spicoli from the film Fast Times
102
at Ridgemont High.31 There are superficial differences between Travis and Spicoli –
Spicoli is a surfer whilst Travis is a skateboarder, and Spicoli’s dialogue is very much
in the surfer style – but both hold the same position in situation in the school and in
the film, as the comedy character with an unexpected depth of feeling and
understanding. Travis is a more modern and quieter figure than Spicoli, which allows
him to be a character with romantic potential, a characteristic not awarded to Spicoli
himself.32
Linguistically, Travis is part of the film’s speech community, as he makes the same
cultural references in his dialogue and gives one of the film’s best examples of media
awareness informing linguistic style. During one scene a teacher is reading out a list
of instances of student tardiness, and amongst the class Travis has the most examples
of tardiness. When Travis learns this, his reaction is to perform a speech to accept this
honour in the style of a winner at an award ceremony:
Travis: This is so unexpected, I, uh, I didn’t even have a speech
prepared. Uh, but I would like to say this: Tardiness is not
something you can do all on your own. Many, many people
contributed to my tardiness. Uh, I’d like to thank my parents for
never giving me a ride to school, the L.A. city bus driver for
taking a chance on an unknown kid, and uh, last but not least, the
wonderful crew at McDonalds for spending hours making those
egg McMuffins, without which I might never be tardy.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High was one of Amy Heckerling’s first films as a director, and based on a
book by Cameron Crowe (Fast Times at Ridgemont High: A True Story. Simon and Schuster, 1981),
who had spent time undercover as a high-school student to give a truthful depiction of the
contemporary American teenager. Jeff Spicoli is the most memorable character in the film, and was
played by Sean Penn.
32
The differences between the two characters could also relate to the difference in certification
between the two films. Clueless was a 12 certificate in 1995, whist Fast Times at Ridgemont High was
an 18 in 1982 (according to the system set out by the BBFC). The earlier film was also far bawdier,
with more explicit scenes of sexual activity and casual drug use.
31
103
Travis’s dialogue moves him from being a student in a classroom, to a winner in an
awards ceremony, and back again within a matter of seconds and without any real
thought. The incorporation of different speech genres in Travis’s speech demonstrates
the significant of media texts in the cultural understanding of teenage characters. In
her study of British teenagers in the South Asian communities of London, Marie
Gillespie describes the significance of television and how it is incorporated into their
conversations, with the discussion of the relationships of fictional characters
intermingling with those of their actual friends, ‘young people move so fluidly and
seemingly unselfconsciously between “soap talk” and “real talk”. The two are
inextricably linked and, to an outsider, often indistinguishable’ (Gillespie 1995, 143).
What Heckerling shows is the extreme version of this. The character’s interpretation
of the context provide a humorous scene for the audience, as they are aware of the
sudden changes of speech genres as a constant feature in the film with Cher’s various
linguistic manipulations. The change in Travis’s speech is apparently an unconscious
decision, but serves to demonstrate to the audience the more stylised nature of the
film’s dialogue.
The cultural awareness needed for this speech is featured within much of the film’s
dialogue. The characters adapt different speech genres in their day to day language,
and display levels of cultural understanding which are higher than usual due to their
positions as fictional constructs. In a school society so dependant on belonging to the
right clique, Travis is rejected due to his status as a Loadie.33 This is a moment of
This is very much like the treatment of the equivalent character in Austen’s Emma – Robert Martin –
who is seen as an unwanted suitor for Emma’s friend Harriet, as he is a farmer and not a gentleman of
status. Emma is grooming Harriet for better things in the same way that Cher has made-over Tai in
order to gain a better class of boyfriend. To repeat Dole’s argument from earlier, the tendency in
American popular culture is to consider the status of the clique as a substitute for a discussion of social
class.
33
104
class-divide based on Travis’s status in the school’s social hierarchy. Linguistically
his utterances echo those of Cher and her group, however for the first time a
character’s social status is a barrier to acceptance. The screenplay of Clueless uses
style purposefully, and there are examples of behaviour that would be considered
extreme and unlikely in a realist text, but this scene refers to the behaviour and
attitude of real teenagers.34 Travis’s identity becomes more acceptable after he has reassessed himself following his painful public rejection by Tai. He joins a 12-step
programme in order to give up drugs, and becomes focussed through the possibility of
a career in professional skateboarding. His clean attitude to life and his ambition for a
career demonstrate an innate change in him, and a rejection of his persona as a
Loadie. It is this persona that made him unsuitable for Tai in Cher’s view, and by
rejecting it his validity as a romantic partner for Tai is confirmed.
The outsider – Christian
Christian is the second new student to be introduced to the school, but unlike Tai his
position as an outsider goes unchanged, and he makes no effort to join the central
group. His language use, clothes, interests, and sexuality combine to keep him a step
apart from the other teenagers, his identity having been formed by his interest in the
style and culture of the 1950s. Everything about him reflects this interest including
his clothes, his car, and his love of Billie Holiday music and Tony Curtis films.
Gillespie describes the significance of apparently trivial conversations amongst
teenagers, ‘TV talk, though it may often seem esoteric and trivial, is an important
form of self-narration and a major collective resource through which identities are
negotiated’ (Gillespie 1995, 205). Despite the fact that Christian discusses cinema,
The screenplay of Fast Times at Ridgemont High, which was based on Cameron Crowe’s
undercover investigation of high school life, leads to an assumption of realism in the scenes featured;
and though Clueless is more glossy and far-fetched at times, the language is still recognisable.
34
105
art, music and fashion more than television, his identity is formed from a different
period of time to every other member of his generation. Unlike the numerous
occasions when Cher has proven her cultural understanding, here she is unable to
follow Christian references. This is shown clearly on two occasions; firstly, when
Billie Holiday is raised in conversation Cher assumes that the singer is male, and
secondly when she mentions that Christian has brought a copy of the film
‘Sporaticus’ for them to watch.35 Christian makes no attempt to correct Cher when
she fails to follow his meaning, nor does he attempt to enlighten her about his
interests in the period as though to maintain his enigmatic status.
Christian can be seen as a postmodern character, with his personality and selfexpression a means of referencing a specific cultural and historic period. Within the
film, Christian’s character function is presented in a very obvious manner as a
potential romantic interest for Cher. He is depicted as an attractive, stylish and
mysterious new student, and when he first appears we see him through Cher’s eyes,
with romantic music playing on the soundtrack.36 His personality and style is
reminiscent of the ‘Rat Pack’ and the culture that was built around these figures since
the 1950s. Clueless also opened amidst a resurgence of that style and culture in
America, discussed as the culture of ‘neo-swing’, and noted in other films including
The Mask (Chuck Russell, 1994), and Swingers (Doug Liman, 1996). Eric Martin
Usner discusses dance events held in Southern California in the late 1990s where the
nostalgia for earlier periods of dance culture is indulged, ‘from flappers to bobbysoxers, zoot-suiters with pegged leg trousers to the cabbie hat, T-shirt, and sneakerclad crowd’ (Usner 2001, 87). Christian’s general appearance echoes the final image
35
Meaning Spartacus (Stanley Kubrick, 1960).
In contrast to the majority of the film, Christian’s entrance is scored with a romantic swelling
orchestra rather than a contemporary pop song.
36
106
included by Usner here, and though he is not seen taking part in retro dance events,
his language and interests evoke the period in each of his scenes. The use of the
1950s is also significant for that decade’s association with the rise of teenage culture,
and the origins of the Hollywood teen film. Representation of teenagers can often be
seen to look to the past for inspiration be it in cinema, with nostalgic views of the
1950s used in the musical Grease (Randal Kleiser, 1978) and the television sit-com
Happy Days (1974-1984), and coming of age dramas like American Graffiti (George
Lucas, 1973) and Dirty Dancing (Emile Ardolino, 1987) reminiscing about the early
1960s.
Christian’s language is full of period slang, featuring phrases such as: ‘clam-bakes’,
‘doll-face’, and ‘I dig’, which stand out from the dialogue of the other teenagers. The
self-conscious awareness of Christian’s references highlights his position as an
outsider. By referencing a different period of contemporary history Christian’s
references are understandable but distinctly different from the other characters.
However, by creating a character whose image and affectations refer to a current
cultural fad, Christian’s identity appears transitory and frivolous. Christian’s
character does not develop significantly onscreen, and at no time does he demonstrate
any emotional attachment to his peer group, therefore the motivation for his interest
in this period remains unexplored. The use of a cultural signifiers from the past add to
Christian’s mystery and appeal, and as he is a teenager, it is arguable that he makes
these cultural references accessible to his peers in an way that would not be possible
for an adult who actually lived through the period in question reminiscing about their
past. Christian’s identity is as significant as that taken by Murray who attempts to
convey a current form of desirable masculinity in the language of the inner-city; but
107
again Murray’s identity is contemporary and familiar, whilst Christian distances
himself by choosing an identity associated with the past.
The purpose of Christian’s character is to create confusion, and to highlight Cher’s
various cultural misunderstandings. When the narrative positions him as a romantic
partner for Cher, she misreads him constantly, up until the moment that she discovers
that he is gay. From this moment onwards, with Christian repositioned as a friend – or
in Cher’s words ‘shopping partner’ – her ability to understand his references
improves enormously:
Christian: I have a question, alright?
Cher: What?
Christian: The jacket? Is it James Dean or Jason Priestly?
Cher: Carpe' diem. OK, you looked hot in it.
In this conversation, Christian’s cultural identity – which is positioned here
somewhere between the star of Rebel without a Cause and the star of Beverly Hills
90210 – is left to one side in favour of fashion and attractiveness, and ends the need
for cultural misunderstanding between them. By using references that both parties
understand there is a full connection between them for the first time. Christian has
completed his role in the film, by opening Cher’s eyes to new experiences and
possibilities and to her naïveté towards other people. Christian is the only character
outside of Cher’s influence, which is demonstrated by her various failed attempts to
seduce him, and his lack of interest in joining her community of school friends,
leaving his style and language use unchanged throughout the film. Christian also
108
stands in opposition to Tai, as he is happiest as an individual whilst she is desperate to
belong.
To the teenage community Christian’s language and behaviour is colourful and
exciting, whilst the adults tend to find him foolish and irritating:
Mel: What’s with you kid? You think the death of Sammy Davis
left an opening in the Rat Pack?
The reaction to Christian’s persona alters dependant on to whom he is speaking.
Whilst the teenage generation find him fascinating for various reasons, the older
characters seem to suffer him more than encourage him. It is possible that various
adult characters in the film find him tiresome as he is only playing with a different set
of references. It is also possible that his performance is too overblown for anyone
who may remember the period he is appropriating, or that they simply recognise
Christian’s experimentation with adolescent identity building.
Christian plays with an alternative identity, experimenting with a different cultural
period and adopting its conventions. Within the context of the film Christian’s
identity appears fully formed, but it is unlikely that his interest in the 1950s will be
permanent, as it is understood that the teenage years are a time of experimentation
with style and interests. Bauman has described the process of creating an identity as a
process of constant experimentation, moving easily from one to another, with the
endless variety affording one the potential for never fixing on one self-image:
Many more undreamt-of-identities are still to be invented and
coveted in your lifetime. You’ll never know for sure whether the
109
identity you are currently parading is the best you can get and the
one most likely to give you the most satisfaction (Bauman 2004,
85).
One issue that could be questioned is the authenticity of Christian’s persona. The
personas of the other teenagers have varying degrees of authenticity within the film.
Cher’s attitude and behaviour alter during the course of the narrative but her persona
remains constant. In the case of Tai, her persona is altered by the lessons she learns
from Cher and Dionne, and then mutates slightly due to the overwhelming surge in
her popularity, but then returns to its original state by being reunited with Travis.
What is difficult with Christian’s character is that he remains constant but somewhat
unknown within the narrative. His character is dominated by his cultural references,
and at no point is he presented in repose, his performance is all that is shown. His
position as an enigma remains unchanged.
The ‘permanent’ element of Christian’s identity, his sexuality, is made known but it is
not revealed by Christian himself, and at first this is also his most confusing factor.
There are suggestions throughout the film that Christian is an unsuitable romantic
partner for Cher, but this becomes clear when he spends an evening at Cher’s house
watching films. The two films Christian has brought for them to watch are Some Like
it Hot (Billy Wilder, 1959) and Spartacus. We are even shown a scene from
Spartacus, featuring Tony Curtis and Laurence Olivier (as Antonius and Crassus),
rather than a scene featuring Spartacus himself. The acknowledged homosexual subtext of this scene from Spartacus, shown within Clueless, works as a signifier of
Christian’s own sexuality – which is then confirmed further by Christian’s verbal
praising of the scene. Christian is ultimately ‘outed’ by Murray to the surprise of Cher
and Dionne, as neither girl had suspected that his sexuality was in question. At no
110
point does Christian verbally confirm this accusation, but immediately following
Murray’s revelation Christian is seen wearing pink, apparently signifying the truth of
the statement.
As with the rest of the teenagers’ dialogue, Christian’s ‘outing’ is contextualised
through references to popular culture. Murray refers to numerous iconic gay icons
and texts, such as Barbara Streisand, Oscar Wilde, and The Wizard of Oz (Victor
Fleming, 1939), to emphasise his declaration. The fact that Christian is not given any
dialogue to confirm or deny the accusation seems unimportant, as Christian’s
sexuality serves only to make him unavailable to Cher as a romantic partner and to
push her towards her eventual romantic relationship with Josh. Christian’s sexuality
adds to his position outside the central group, and even though his language use does
not directly indicate this aspect of his identity, his constant position outside the group
and his refusal to compromise his identity reinforces his presence as a gay teenager. 37
Christian does not comply with the social dialect used by his peers, and the
construction of his identity around cultural points that are unfamiliar to these peers
allows him to stand out. Equally, Christian’s use of language is familiar from a world
outside the understanding of Cher and her group. Christian’s utterances are familiar
and understandable but echo another cultural period, as opposed to the other
characters in the world of Clueless. As with Cher, Christian does not adapt his
37
The use of a gay character in the conventional teen genre was still fairly rare at the start of the 1990s,
despite the fact that the archetype had been established early in the genre’s history. One of the earliest
agreed gay teenagers in cinema would be Plato in Rebel without a Cause, a troubled boy who idolised
and idealised the film’s protagonist Jim Stark. Gay teenagers appear more regularly on television,
where a longer format can devote more time to the exploration of the character. By the end of the
1990s, gay teenagers featured in many of the most influential television dramas of the genre, including:
Ricky in My So-Called Life (1994-95), Jack in Dawson’s Creek, Willow in Buffy the Vampire Slayer,
and in Britain one of the most extreme and controversial examples, Nathan in Queer as Folk (1999).
111
language in order to conform to social context. He maintains his linguistic style as an
expression of his identity throughout the film, with no concession to whomever he is
speaking. Christian’s persona is also consistent, and although he is less of a mystery
at the end of the film, he has made no effort himself to clarify the mysterious
elements of his character.
The college student – Josh
Josh is the moderator of the film as he lies between the high school students and the
adults. Josh is only a few years older than Cher, but is out of step with the teenagers
and is representative of how swiftly fashions change in clothing, music and in
language. Josh is constantly positioned as an outsider due to the difference in age
between him and Cher – as he is in college as opposed to high school – and he
represents the post-teen years and the move into adulthood. As a college student he is
positioned between school and work, and presents himself as mature and responsible,
taking an interest in charitable causes, and criticising Cher for her selfishness. In
Dionne’s words:
Dionne: Is Josh giving you shit because he’s going through his
post-adolescent idealistic phase?
This description of Josh is confirmed through various scenes of him watching the
news, and reading large volumes of the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. If Cher is the
image of the traditional selfish teenage girl, then Josh is the stereotype of the serious,
academically-minded student. Josh’s language use is different to the slang used by
Cher and her school friends, due to his age and position within the family situation,
but Cher’s language does not create a barrier between them as might be created with
112
the member of a different generation. These two characters can communicate, as Josh
is able to understand Cher’s teen-speak and respond to it; and, to allow their
relationship to evolve into a romance they need to be able to understand each other
fully. The age gap between them is no more than five years and therefore the school
slang that Cher uses would not have developed very much since Josh own time at
school. There are some differences however, as when Josh attempts to repeat
examples of Cher’s vocabulary back to her and her friends; it causes them to laugh at
him:
Example 1:
Cher: Hey, you what would be so dope? If we got some really
delicious take-out. I bet they haven't eaten all night.
Josh: That would be pretty dope of us. Let's do it.
Example 2:
Murray: Oh, my God. They're planning our weddings already.
Could you all stop all that to death do us part mumbo-jumbo. I'm
telling ya, man, I'm completely buggin'.
Josh: I'm buggin' myself.
On both of these occasions, Josh’s attempt to use contemporary slang causes much
amusement amongst Cher and her friends. The age difference between them is
significant enough to alter the response of one to the other. As with the response of
the adults to Christian’s use of 1950s slang, the speech community reaction to Josh’s
use of their language is one of bemusement. Even with only a few years between
them, Josh’s effort to use the specific language of the group is awkward and seen to
be incorrect, which suggests that he is of the wrong generation to use this language,
and therefore positions him outside of the speech community. Shary describes the
representation of school fads in the genre and the constant shifts in popularity and
113
fashions, with a high school ‘generation’ lasting no more than four years, creating a
constant refreshing of slang, styles, and cultural references. With each new generation
comes the desire to be different, therefore in order to stand out the new must define
itself against the aesthetic and tastes of the previous generation, ‘certain types of
music, styles of dress, manners of speech, and even social attitudes are bound to be
limited to relatively short lifespans among youth, especially those in school who are
constantly monitoring the changing cultural landscape’ (Shary 2002, 29-30).
We see the difference between school generations through the relationship of Cher
and Josh. The elements of their relationship that could be read as sibling rivalry could
also be read according to Shary’s statement. Cher complains about Josh’s interests in
music and culture as well as his clothing, which demonstrates her contempt for, in
Shary’s words, ‘the outmoded styles and fashion of the groups that preceded them’
(Shary 2002, 29). Josh’s interests are unfashionable, or at least the moment when they
were fashionable has passed. Linguistically, the difference between Cher and Josh are
minor, and their conversations feature no difficulties of understanding. Having left
the environment of the school and found himself in a new community, Josh has had to
create connections with new people.
In a rare scene of Josh with another college student they share a faux-intellectual
discussion. The conversation is not shown in full, is seen from Cher’s perspective and
is only brought into the foreground when Cher makes an interruption. When the
student, who is also Josh’s girlfriend, attributes the Shakespearian quotation ‘to thine
own self be true’ to Hamlet, Cher is able to correct her that the line was actually
114
uttered by Polonius.38 This causes Josh to laugh, which aligns him with Cher rather
than his girlfriend. Though Josh enjoys the challenge of intellectual debate he also
appreciates the puncturing of his girlfriend’s pretension. He is at once embracing the
language of adulthood – represented by intellectual debate, and the abandonment of
teenage slang – Josh still acknowledges that teenagers can make a valid contribution
to conversation. Cher has been patronised and underestimated as a child who knows
very little, but surpasses expectation and effectively demonstrates her cultural
knowledge.
Josh has moved on from his teenage identity, and examples of his thoughtful and
mature self-image make regular appearances. Josh’s ambition is to be a lawyer
specialising in environmental law – a career that demands a serious attitude and an
understanding of important causes – but his seriousness in regard to his future is
balanced against the childish arguments between Cher and himself. Cher makes the
connection between Josh’s attempts to be mature and an aversion to enjoyment.
Adults are seen to be boring and lifeless, but the teenagers are often seen to try and
act in a sophisticated manner and enjoy being regarded as mature for their age. Josh is
the in-between character of the film positioned between the high school students and
the adults, and his language use demonstrates his ability to communicate with both,
though he also has the negative aspect of being mocked by both sides.
As described above, Josh is unable to use the contemporary form of teen-speak
effectively despite being able to understand it fully. He is too old for membership of
Cher’s knowledge of Hamlet is based on her love of Mel Gibson, who starred in Franco Zeffirelli’s
film adaptation of the play in 1990. Though she may not know the full history of Shakespeare’s work,
or why her frame of reference may appear amusing in conversation, this does not stop her from
contributing to the debate.
38
115
the teenage speech community, but when he acts as an assistant to Mel on a legal
case, he is positioned alongside Cher when she is described as ‘dumb kid’ by one of
Mel’s colleagues. The result of this is that Josh is not being taken seriously by either
side. If the teen-speak operates as a generational dialect, or as the language of a
speech community featured within the context of the school and of group activities it
is possible that is will fade once the community is divided. Josh is able to use teenspeak and recreate the style when necessarily, but this linguistic form is less familiar
and regular in his day to day language than it is in the language use of Cher and the
group. Josh’s move into adulthood is represented most significantly by his use of a
more homogenous language. By embracing adulthood Josh steps away from the more
singular language of Cher and the speech community, and though he can understand
their conversations he does not need to appropriate this language into his daily
speech.
Conclusion
What is seen in Clueless is the contemporary teen genre self-consciously
demonstrating its own genre’s conventions. By building on the work of the previous
decade of Hollywood production (especially Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The
Breakfast Club, and Heathers) the teen genre of the 1990s could be summarised
through terms such as ironic, postmodernism, and self-awareness. The genre also
made a point in its more mainstream examples of referencing the genre’s history and
pushing the genre’s conventions to the forefront of the narrative.
Bakhtin’s theory of the utterance discusses the place of the utterance in language and
its role in conveying period, character history, and the context of the statement. The
116
repetition of conversational structures (Cher’s numerous attempts to manipulate her
father and her teachers), the individuality of speech patterns (the rhythms of urban
slang used by Murray, or Tai’s New York accent), and contemporary terminology
(the use of politically correct terminology that were prevalent in the 1990s) provide a
context of the events in the film. The consistency of style in the utterances of the
teenage characters grounds the narrative in a time and place (albeit a fictional
location), and not only marks group membership but the appearance of outsiders
through their dialogue. The constructed nature of each utterance as a piece of film
dialogue allows for a state of consistency in the writing process, whilst also
establishing individual character identities to support and propel the overall narrative.
The role of Cher’s narration establishes an authority to the teenage voice in Clueless
that is absent in other representations of teenagers. It is Cher’s voice, linguistic style
and perspective on the world around her that guides the audience into the narrative
and introduces the various characters. It is also through her words and perspective
that each character’s positive or negative traits are outlined. The other teenagers echo
the linguistic style established in Cher’s narration, or are drawn in contrast with this
style.
Bakhtin’s observation on the role of the text and the context in the analysis of the
utterance, as well as the significance of intonation can be seen throughout Clueless.
The work of Pujolar which applies a similar theory to young people in Barcelona,
discussing the changes made in an individual’s language according to the context of
their situation, is also appropriate when applied to the reaction of adult characters in
Clueless when teen-speak is used inappropriately . The flow of conversation and the
use of slang amongst friends in a social context reflects the relaxed nature of the
117
environment and the familiarity of the individuals present, however if this same
relaxed linguistic style is maintained in formal situations it is inappropriate and
receives a negative reaction. In the film, this is emphasised as Cher’s world changes
around her. The linguistic style of her social group which is tolerated in the school
environment is unacceptable in the formal context of a driving test and ineffective in
the context of her father’s work.
The language used in Clueless has various functions and can be used to examine
various social aspects of the film’s narrative. Not only is language responsible for
creating distinctions between generations, it can be used to examine character
placement amongst the film’s characters within the speech community which differs
from the membership of the social group at the centre of the film. Membership of the
central group or speech community depends on the ability to conform. The speech
community remains as the centre point of the film and operates by maintaining a
constant linguistic style, which forms an effective and influential representation of its
teenage characters. The speech community keeps its dominant position and though
the members of the central group change, the members and language of the speech
community are constant. There are occasions of the central group using the language
of their community at inappropriate times – or when speaking to a character from
outside the group – which then fails to have the desired effect as it would within the
usual location of school or on a social occasion with members of the community.
Whilst this system of language and attitude is effective in one situation it is
inappropriate in another.
118
The work of Doherty and Shary on the history and development of the teen genre are
a significant starting point for the discussion of these films. Shary especially builds on
the work done by Doherty and demonstrates how later films used the conventions of
the ‘teenpics’ of the 1950s and 1960s and added to them in the decades that followed.
In the contemporary examples of the genre these conventions were then emphasised
as the films produced highlighted their ancestry by containing verbal and visual
references to the films that went before. The work of Doherty and Shary are a vital
foundation for this study, as they provide a solid foundation for the chapters that
follow. The role of language in conveying the conventions of the teen genre, and in
the contemporary examples of the teen film, provides a sense of self-awareness in
each film, either in the acknowledgement of the wider genre and as the echoes and
reverberations of previous films shapes the meanings of each new film. Teen films
have always featured slang in the dialogue of their young characters, but by creating
an overt linguistic style, which combines references to popular culture, the trading of
adolescent insults and a sophisticated understanding of language as a signifier of
community membership, Clueless advances the understanding of the genre in the
complex utterances of its teenage characters.
119