How far does the representation of youth change over time?

For many years the youth of today have had a negative representation within the media. Many events have occurred to support this such as youth violence of gun and knife crime and quite recently, the riots, whereby the 'youth' were stereotypically the dominant age group portrayed. I will be focussing on two films: ‘Rebel Without A Cause’ (RWAC) juxtaposed with ‘Kidulthood’ to see if the representation of youth has changed and how (if any) that is evident through these films.

The first few differences noticeable between the two films are the dialogue in them. The conversations held and tone of voice in RWAC is much ‘softer’ than what is heard in Kidulthood. There are very few scenes in Kidulthood where one character doesn’t swear or use harsh, inappropriate language to the other. (A few that can be pointed out are when they talk to their friends’ parents – respect is shown which suggests that even though youth are collectively portrayed to be disrespectful to one another, they know to respect their elders creating a positive representation of the youth.) To communicate, the youth use colloquialisms (slang) to one another where they understand each other, and anyone else (like adults) wouldn’t, which shows a sense of togetherness between their own generations. In RWAC, James Dean speaks respectfully to both his peers and parents and even when harsh language was used, it wasn’t as aggressive as Kidulthood, due to the fact that foul language back in the 1950s was censored.

The difference in social class between the two is evident by the way the characters dress and where they live. In RWAC, James Dean wears a leather jacket and has a smart-casual look whereas the characters in Kidulthood are wearing a typical “gangster” hoodie and tracksuit look. This represents the continuous changing and developing sub cultures over time. In Kidulthood, the characters seem to add their own style to their uniform by accessorising with a cap, loose tie and a hoodie which forms their own collective identity, separating themselves from the rest of the school which also suggests a sense of rebelliousness.  The theory of Foucault is present as he believes that “everyone is born with a basic identity, which is then mediated through the people we meet and is soon limited, as a stereotypical view is created.” Evidently, those part of the same ‘gang’ follow each other by the way they dress and are stereotyped heavily due to what they look like. For example, in a scene in Kidulthood, a security guard follows Trevor and his two friends out of the shop as he assumes that Trevor stole a hat, but was actually already wearing it when he came in. Perhaps, if Trevor and his two friends were dressed in a smart suited look, the security guard wouldn’t have looked twice at them. It is clear to see that the representation of youth has remained negative since the trend of hoodies and tracksuits have been in fashion and the negative stereotype will remain amongst this type of clothing until a huge impact can change the view of people.

Furthermore, the area they live in can help define the youth of today. For example, the area which the youth live in Kidulthood can be considered to be deprived and of a lower class, as various council estates are shown, which could suggest a hard lifestyle and neglected upbringing. In comparison to RWAC we see James Dean’s house which is of a modern size, in an area that can be considered to be more middle to an upper class which clearly presents a juxtaposition not just within the areas, but with their families and lifestyle too.

Other negative and rebellious views of youth are evident through both of these films which may question whether or not the negative stereotype has developed over time or if it has always been like this.  For example, although RWAC is much more 'cleaner' and less-violent than Kidulthood, it holds aspects where negativity it portrayed of the youth. There was a scene where all the students met up after college and had a car race. This is a dangerous and ignorant thing to do and is typical of the youth to carry out this event, almost as though it is expected of them. Theorist Isidore Isou said "the young, who have nothing to lose, are the attack. They are the adventure" this conforms to the scenario as the youth knew their lives were at risk, but do not realise the consequences until someone gets hurt. And in Kidulthood the violence, gang fights and obvious promiscuity is heightened which perhaps shows that the actions of youth have developed more-so for others to have a stronger opinion, rather than it being a whole new concept.

It is fair to say that the representation of youth has developed rather than changed as there has always been a sense of negativity for a long period of time. The extent to which this is revealed is quite explicit nowadays with regards to the sex, drugs and violence presented in Kidulthood in comparison to RWAC where it wouldn't have been accepted as society hadn't developed thus far. The media perceives the youth in a negative light whereby they can be seen as the 'out-group' and everybody else who doesn’t fit into the category as the 'in-group' conforming to Henri Tajfel's theory.