‘The Trials of Oz’ from Robertson’s ‘The Justice Game’ explores the conflicting
perpsectives over society’s views on the sexual content in Oz magazine’s 28th
“Schoolkids Edition”, where each perspective is influenced by ones generation. Oz’s
editors, Neville, Dennis and Anderson, faced charges of “obscenity” and “conspiracy
to corrupt pubic morals”.Robertson portrays his perspective that many people and the
police overreacted to references of oral sex: cunnilingus and the erect penis of
“Rupert the Bare”. Those challenging these claims believe in appreciating the
individual and his/her right to express themselves in new and different ways, as
opposed to state laws that are slow to adapt to change due to societies conservative
nature. The conflicting ideology between the generations is evident through the intertextual reference to popular song lyrics of Bob Dylan through Nevilles declaration
of ‘For the times they are a- changing’, and ‘I wanted to shock your generation’
highlighting the clash between generations and the need for the older generations to
change their expectations on society. Robertson suggests that the magazine did not
threaten anything, supported through his extended metaphor, comparing the court to
a theatre. This is supported through his reference to the people being ‘cast’ and the
police deliver their lines from a ‘script’. Here, Robertson discredits the court,
suggesting that it is as false and pretentious as the theatre, highlighting his opposing
perspective. Exlain further? Additional, Robertson selects excerpts he wants in order
to gain audience sympathy that lies in support of the Magazine. This can be seen
through satire and positive emotive language, lessening the seriousness of the case,
evident in Andersons humour of ‘yes I thought it was extraordinary, even brilliant’,
in response to Leary’s colloquial and capitalized ‘making Robert bear fuck’, in
reference to the cartoon published in a ‘school kids edition’ of sexually aroused
Rupert bear. Here, Oz is portrayed as a piece of art that only offended the narrow
minded. Additionally, Anderson ridicules the charge himself, emphasising his
challenge of conservative society. Furthermore, it highlights his modernised view of
contemporary society as opposed to the conflicting perspective of an ‘inappropriate’
sexually explicit image. Robertson represents judge Argyle as prejudiced and
highlights his interpretation of the case as foolish and narrow-minded, Judge argyle
adopts the perspective that the permissive values of young people are a real threat to
civilisation. Robertson mocks judge Argyle through his interpretation of the word
‘cunnilinctus’ as a cough medicine, however is corrected through the detailed
description and slang reference of ‘sucking’ and ‘gobbling’, thus mocking his
ignorance and old fashioned nature. In comparison, the prosecutor uses the system to
maintain and promote his own conservative values, evident through the emotive
language and inclusive language to capture the audience through ‘the destruction of
everything we believed until now’, heightening the superficiality of the magazine as
opposed to the timeless moral values of humanity.
Similarly to Geoffrey Robertson’s ‘the trials of Oz’, Milos Forman’s film, ‘the people
VS Larry Flynt’ exposes the conflicting perspective between an individuals’ freedom
of speech VS censorship. The film is compelling in that it is based on the true story of
Larry flynt’s pornographic magazine the Hustler; a highly controversial form of
expression during his era of conservatism. The struggle to balance community
sensitivities and individual liberty in the film is evident through the dichotomy
device in “God VS Devil” and the American Jargon and colloquialism of
“American Minister VS American pimp”. These literary devices highlight the
difference between both worlds emphasising continued conflicting perspectives. This
idea that one’s perspective is drawn from one’s social morals and values can be
supported through the close up of Charles Keating the prosecutor who promotes
censorship through his assertive tone in “Descent people are being corrupted” and his
metaphor in “the soul of our country”, effect of metaphor?
here the perspectives is in support for censorship where Keating argues for public
decency. This perspective was clearly a result of the public outcry due to his or her
conservative nature; which can be contrasted to Larry’s perspective that every
individual is entitled to this freedom of expression. He uses law through the first
amendment act to argue that one’s perspective is shaped by laws. Welle’s’ rhetorical
question of “What do you consider obscene, sex or war?, coupled with the use of
shallow focus, is aided with imagery of war in comparison to sex in order to prove his
resistance to censorship and hence magnifying the conflicting perspective. The use of
shallow focus is used to emphasise larry flynt, and show the importance of his
statements, where his actions and thoughts prevail of everything else. Larry Flynt
proves that there will always be a constant struggle to balance community sensitivities
and individual liberties as long as individual morals and values continue to differ.
More technical analysis needed, particularly film techniques since it is a film.
Geoffrey Robertson’s ‘Diana in the docks’, depicts the conflicting perspectives on
celebrity VS privacy. Diana’s perspective is based on the image in a magazine of
Diana working out in a gym, a breach of privacy for monetary gains, as opposed to
the idea that the gym was a public place, thus the media having every right to this
photo. As the princess of Wales, Diana is positioned as a vulnerable celebrity through
the legal jargon and military jargon of ‘To obtain damages for the invasion of her
privacy’, implying a violent attack to her privacy and thus highlighting the
detrimental effect the image has had. Diana’s strong perspective on individual
privacy is evident through the economic jargon and hyperbolic statement ‘She
obtained injunctions and orders of every kind against Taylor, freezing his assets and
effectively ruining him’. Not only does this represent the lengths to which Diana is
willing to go to, to protect her privacy, but also the immense power she has to do it. In
contrast, Geoffrey Robertson’s perspective highlights that those in power can
manipulate other peoples perspective for their own advantage. This is evident through
the conjunction ‘But Diana only wanted privacy when it suited her’ and the ‘She was
not prepared to pay the price nor was she prepared to relinquish the pedestal, instead
she had chosen to revel in the role of Queen of Hearts.’ The visual image of a
‘pedestal’ and colloquial idiom ‘queen of heart’ highlights Diana’s status and implies
that she had used her status to manipulate. Furthermore it highlights the perspective
that Diana had opted for this attention by choice and thus is not entitled to privacy.
Geoffrey sides with the defendant through his superlative [she was in] ‘the least
private gym in London’ and the low modality and third person of ‘She could much
more conveniently used the gym at Buckingham palace’ to show she could have
retained her privacy had she really wanted to. Furthermore, Robertson’s perspective
on the case is that the award of damages for breach of privacy has no direct precedent
in British law, and that Diana has manipulated the media in order to suit herself by
receiving the publicity she wanted. Thus, Geoffrey Robertson’s positions the
responder to question the conflicting perspective of, did Diana really did want
privacy?, as opposed to the perspective that she used her power to manipulate the
case, thus allowing one to question, does she deserve privacy after all?
Similarly, the audio extract from ABC's Rear Vision Radio Program (15/6/2011),
highlights that perspective’s stem from an individuals beliefs and values. The audio
extract depicts the complexities of conflicting perspectives based on the belief that
celebrities do deserve privacy, as opposed to the idea that having chosen such a
lifestyle, the media has every right into their lives. This continuous conflict can be
explored through the verisimilitude created through four different individual
perspectives, reinforcing the reality that perspectives are forever different, dependent
on one’s belief’s or values. The first perspective allows the audience to understand
that the media is entitled to the lives of celebrities. This is enforced through the
opening segment, through the news room music in conjunction with a voice over of,
‘a team of 40 people are investigating’. These combined devices create a news room
effect outlining the idea that celebrity news is a modernized right for the community.
The conflicting perspective arises through the idea that media often “Crosses the
line”, similar to Diana’s perspective, evident through the phone hacking, and Diana’s
private images being publicised. The consequences of such an act is shown through
the device of emphasis that is placed on the word ‘prison’ highlighting the negative
effect of meddling the one’s privacy, followed by a pause of “this won’t change
anything”. Furthermore, these devises support the perspective that individual privacy
is an individual right, and thus consequences such as prison are involved, however
also emphasizing the never-ending conflict. Additionally the high modality and
colloquial language of “Face it, the hard facts are this” in conjunction with the
gastronomic metaphor of “satisfy the appetite of consumers” indicates that while
individuals may believe in celebrity privacy, they still take up this gossiping
opportunity and hence endorse the media further. Similarly to the people VS Larry
Flynt, and ‘Diana in the docks’, the conflicting perspective hence becomes a
complicated issue contrasting the legislative right in respecting one’s privacy, in
comparison the legislative right to freedom of expression.