Showing posts with label masculinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label masculinity. Show all posts

Sunday, November 2, 2025

The Films of Julia Ducournau: Titane




            The second film in my analysis of The Films of Julia Ducournau is the genre-bending body horror thriller, Titane. Ducournau’s sophomore feature seems to crystalize and extend both the themes and the visuals she is interested in as a storyteller into a specified shape. The gendering of women and the patriarchal attempt to tame them, aging masculinity and the sense of identity loss that accompanies it, are present in this Palm d’Or winning wild wretched tale whose production was halted by the COVID Lockdown. This brief paper is a deconstruction of Ducournau’s second film as a cultural product; questioning the historical parallels of the anti-trans legislation at the time, with the films own complicated take on Trans issues and gender messaging; while examining the production and the overall craft of the film with the filmmaker’s desire to have this film be received as a story about unconditional love and acceptance.

 


PLOT

After young Alexia survives a car accident as a child, she develops mechaphilia and a penchant for murder. After committing a series of murders and a “one-night stand” with a Cadillac, Alexia flees. She alters her appearance to look like a lost boy and assumes his identity and is reunited with his father, Vincent. This ruse proves difficult to sustain as Alexia finds that she is rapidly progressing in pregnancy with an amalgamated mutant of her erotic dalliance with a car. As her new relationships are tested, both Vincent and Alexia must trust one another and decide if the lies between them matter less than the familial love they found between them.



 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

            Both Titane, and Ducournau as a writer/director, were met with great acclaim while simultaneously bogged down by the challenges of an industry shut down due to a global pandemic. Additionally, a particular reading of the film correlates to trans discrimination bills and anti-trans rhetoric going on at the center of 2021 when the film was in production. This section intends to analyze these events and the perceived effect on the film. By placing it in a particular historical context, a richer understanding of the film as a cultural product can be achieved.

            Production

            One of the points of inception for Titane’s plot came to director Julia Ducournau in a dream. She would have a recurring nightmare about giving birth to engine parts. This recursion caused Ducournau to formulate the film’s ending and work backward from there. In the process of reverse engineering a story from the surreality of vehicular excision from the body, Ducournau took on an existential approach thinking about the metaphor of transformations and metamorphoses to get to the next stage of hybridization. Ducournau’s dream laid the foundation for this duality that she eventually would want to explore further: the warmth of giving birth and bringing life with the contrast of the metal representing lifelessness; cold and dark.

            In 2018, as the script was beginning to take shape, Ducournau had dinner with actor Vincent Lindon and mentioned to him that she had a part she was writing for him. In interviews, Lindon recalls not knowing if this was a pleasantry or an actual offer. Vincent waited for secondary confirmation before committing and then waited another two years before getting the script.

Titane marks the feature film debut of Agathe Rousselle (Alexia) who got a message on Instagram that she should audition for the film’s main protagonist. The film was so technical that there could be no space for improvisation. The role was also physically demanding, with both nudity, action and the willingness to masculinely present as a guy.  These demands that would have shaken a seasoned actor let alone a novice. And yet, Rousselle took it in stride and great care in crafting the role.

Titane was set to begin production in April 2020. Because of the lockdown orders that spanned the globe, the film began filming in September of that year, following all of the protocols and procedures of film production at a time when there were no vaccines on the horizon. Luckily, much of the film is centralized around the interplay between two characters, and they do not interact with too many more people outside of themselves. While it is easy to frame Titane as “a pandemic film” because it:

·                 Was shot in a single or multiple isolated locations.

·                 Involved few actors

·                 Blocked scenes with three or fewer people interacting at a time

·                 Had a limited crew  

·                 Included camera techniques to try to make up for the production difficulties

By looking deeper, the text of Titane also speaks to its position as “a pandemic film” because the themes of the film speak to the fragility of the human body and the thin veneer of health and wellness which we learned through the pandemic we hold in a tenuous slipping grasp. Even though this film is not about a global pandemic, the body horror aspects of the film remind us of the same vulnerability during COVID.

           

A consistent influence and paragogic mentor for Ducournau has always been David Cronenberg. While there are homages to his early body horror work in Raw, Titane draws heavily from Cronenberg’s much maligned film Crash, a relatively obscure movie about a group of car accident survivors that start to develop mechaphilia and a kink for car crashes. The way that Cronenberg shoots both the human body and the body of the car, echoes in Titane’s opening as the camera moves from underneath the car, looking at its different parts, before we go inside the cabin. This detail is mirrored by the camera as it follows Alexia through the showroom at the beginning of the film, revealing both Alexia and the glossy polish of engine parts of a car being sold. Alexia and the car begin as separate beings, but throughout the film, they start to merge. In Cronenberg’s Crash, that merging happens at the onset of the vehicular accidents caused during coitus; the survivors growing more machine-like with every collision. Titane takes this merging to be metaphysical, as the amalgamation is triggered by vehicular coitus and represented by the child of that union.

As the film was released on the festival circuit it garnered early buzz given its provocative premise and enigmatically shocking sequences. As the film was set to premiere at Cannes, it ended up taking the prestigious Palm d’Or. Infamously, this revelation was spoiled early by Spike Lee, who mistook first prize for first place, confusing Titane to be the runner up, rather than the winner. Regardless of the flub, Ducournau’s spirits did not dampen as she was, at the time, only the second woman to win the award and the first to win it alone. In that, Ducournau and Titane break both genre boundaries and glass ceilings in equal measure. Yet, the win was not unanimous, many on the Jury finding the film too avant-garde, often leaning into the anti-horror bias that is common in prestigious film festivals (Ben-hadj, 2021).  The genre being once again marred by derogatory labels of shlocky, popcorn, pedestrian, campy etc. Ironically, the rise and embrace of “elevated horror” as a concept redraws the boundaries of class culture within the genre. There are certain stories, because of its material or the auteur status of its director, that have been accepted by the elite class at regulating agencies, like festivals, which instead of balancing the genre scales, put their finger on it; making sure to gate keep horror, keeping it in its place. Ducournau winning the Palm d’Or, especially with a film as wild as Titane, is hopefully a turning point in allowing the eclectic messiness often found in horror to permeate the prestigious parts of the industry, causing a shift in both how horror is perceived, and the talent of those who create it.    

 



            The LGBTQAI Community in Crisis

            Sexuality outside of the white heteronormative cisgendered ableist capitalist patriarchy has always been marginalized (hooks 2000). The problem arises not in their existence, which has been a constant state in human civilizations (and documented in non-human animal species), but in a ridged latticework that is overlayed atop the naturally created universal spectrum of human diversity and identity. The mechanisms of control that create this caustically hostile system has its roots in historical institutional structures and cultural power dynamics that make it difficult to unearth, and whenever there is an attempt, those roots entangle themselves; knotting into a convoluted network that sinks deep into psyches, that is then lightly reinforced at dinner tables or behind closed doors, in court room decisions, in jury boxes, and store “etiquette”. It is hiding in plain sight, (not so) difficult to detect, more likely ignored, until those discriminatory branches decide to sprout.

            Most marginalized groups that have been othered by this wealthy white supremacist heteronormative ageist cisgendered ableist patriarchy have gone through periods of oppression with glimpses of social justice. Whether by race, gender, social class, or disability, all have experienced some amounts of recurrent and worsening oppression with tiny moments of equality and equity through civil rights and social justice movements;[1] only to have it possibly ripped away.     

            The 2000’s in the US, long after Stonewall, the scapegoating of LGBTQAI for the AIDS epidemic, and the consistency of media tropes that liked to murder gays and lesbians to punish them for their sexuality, non-heterosexual individuals started to be more prominently present in media portrayals and with their sexuality not being their defining characteristic. By 2010, homonormativity was becoming a consistent relationship structure in many media portrayals. Similarly, In the US Court System, cases were heard and laws changed that brought the LGBTQAI community more equity: Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 struct down sodomy laws (of which 29 states and 5 territories at the time had already repealed their laws), 2011 saw the repeal of the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy for non-heterosexuals in the military, in 2015, with Obergfell v Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that states must license and recognize same sex marriage in the entire country by ruling that Section three of the Defense of Marriage Act was considered unconstitutional. The most recent civil rights decision by the Supreme Court for the LGBTQAI community came in 2020 with Bostock v. Clayton where the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects people from workplace discrimination, applied to sexual orientation and gender identity.

            In France at the time, gay marriage was legal, same sex adoption was possible, and lesbians had access to reproductive technology. The country had relatively strong discrimination protections, school support, and hate crime legislation. However, since 2018, there has been a rise in attacks and rhetoric against Trans individuals.  Similarly, just as Titane was entering the festival circuit, the newest version of The Equity Act was introduced to US Congress. This bill had the intention of prohibiting discrimination based on sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. The bill passed the House by a narrow margin and went to the Senate; but could not overcome the filibuster. This loss then became a Harbinger of policies and ordinances that have sprouted up to put a strangle hold onto the equity by orientation. In the US, 79 measures and bills were introduced in 2021 alone that restricted or revoked Trans rights or access to trans care; including medical care and a ban on sports participation.

This culminated at the beginning of 2025 when the second Trump administration handed down executive orders that were exclusively transphobic.

On January 20, 2025, Upon returning to office, Donald Trump labeled Trans people “Gender Identity Extremism” and therefore Determined:

·         “Sex” shall refer to an immutable biological classification as either male or female all people should be classified through that lens

·         The term sex should be used in place of gender

·         Gender identity is a falsehood and disconnected from reality

·         Ended federal funding for any K-12 schools that promotes “gender ideology” (loosely defined)

·         Defunding and removal of Diversity Equity and Inclusion Courses

·         Denying access to Transition medication and Procedures  

            This cultural shift of Anti-LGBTQAI rhetoric and policies has begun to cascade over the shores of each country. Both Argentina and Hungry have followed the United States lead in becoming more conservative; banning femicide, blaming feminism, banning Pride, and using facial recognition software to round up those that attended. According to Brechenmacher (2025), this is a part of a new global wave of ANTI-LGBTQAI policies. But unlike previous movements, this new heteronormative resistance is organized and transnational. Social media and the internet allow for the mobilization and unification of desperate and fringe groups, amplifying alienated attitudes and minority opinions. Still, the Pew Research Center shows that over the last few decades, attitudes and behaviors have become more exclusive for trans people. Since 2022, more inclusive attitudes have soured into alignment with the policies that Donald Trump has enacted when he took office for his second term.

Brechenmacher (2025) states:

 “[These] new oppositional movements treat gender equality, feminism, and LGBTQ rights as existential threats to cultural and national integrity linked to globalization, Western liberalism, and the erosion of traditional authority. This shared worldview allows diverse actors—from right-wing populists in Europe to nationalist autocrats in Russia and China to conservative religious groups in Latin America and Africa—to coalesce around a common enemy. (3)”

Like many backlashes to progressive social movements, much of the resistance to these progressive policies is a resistance to change and the acquisition of power by women and non-heterosexual groups.

 In the US, the reasoning is twofold: Firstly, a lot of these conservative [read as narrow minded] beliefs do not have the strength of personal convictions. The only way that their policies can exist is if there is no opposition. They crumble at the first sight of criticism. Sure, they may deflect, produce scapegoats and be in denial, but the sanctity of their ideology cannot exist in a multicultural system that accepts and allows the fruition of equity and equality for all. The happiness, wellness and success of the LGBTQAI +community is abhorrent to the acutely religious conservatives that derive a sense of self from their God’s wrathful righteousness against those that He’d deem wicked. And, if the LGBTQAI+ community is allowed to be happy, healthy, successful and prosperous, that challenges their worldview and their religious identity to the core. This challenge is so visceral that they feel personally insulted by it. Therefore, the dehumanization of nonbinary, trans and everyone else on the gender and sexuality spectrum becomes a moral crusade. Conservatives often obfuscate their intentions by publicly stating that they are protecting children or girls.[2] Secondarily, considering that the gay hook-up app “Grindr” crashed due to overuse in Milwaukee during the Republican National Convention giving credence to the notion that many Religious conservative republicans are gay, but are closeted, illuminates their ire for the LGBTQAI+ community even further. Under this framing, the openness and joy with which non closeted members of the gender and sexuality spectrum live their lives as fully themselves, fosters a sense of resentment in the closeted conservative Christians. They are angry that they feel they cannot be as free as them. Thus, it’s the religious and sexual fragility of (typically) conservative Christian men which motivates anti-trans policies and the eradication of anything that isn’t within the gender binary.    

 


SOCIAL ANALYSIS     

            As a self-identified Feminist, most of Ducournau’s work intertwines themes of gender, sexuality, and representation. In Titane she cloaks those themes in the embodiment of a character that is difficult to empathize with. Without a sympathetic protagonist, it is difficult for the audience to invest in that character’s story. Thus, as Ducournau emphasizes a lot of feminist and gender related concepts presented through characters that audiences aren’t invested in, it causes those gender and feminist ideologies to be misinterpreted as the source of the character’s toxic traits (Bogutskaya 2023). By delivering these gendered themes in an unlikable package, Ducournau stretches the audience’s cinematic latitude of acceptance, challenging them not to project positive personality traits onto characters that embrace, embody, or express socio-political ideologies that they might agree with, while simultaneously punishing those characters for their rejection of patriarchal structure.




            The gendering and punishment of a subversive woman  

            The basic gender socialization of girls and women into a white heterosexist capitalist ableist patriarchy of the United States revolves around the value of their body and its importance to men [collectively, structurally]. The bifurcated message that girls learn, and women often internalize, is that they need to be an object of male sexual adulation and a vessel for the next generation through the process of reproduction. Succinctly, it is important for girls and women to perform duties we have associated with being a wife and mother in this misogynistic patriarchy.

Historically, these messages have shifted slightly. Our misogynistic culture has had to get creative to make sure that it consistently continues to produce women who will be support staff for men. Initially, we framed sex and sexuality through the lens of morality. Men were the only ones with the moral fortitude to engage in conversations of sex or be able to look at pornography without corruption. Meanwhile, any female interest in the subject and she was brandished a harlot. These are part of the sexual scripts of the patriarchy to limit female sexual agency and maintain a sense of control. “Good girls” were innocent, pure, virginal; while “bad girls” were the ones who were interested in sex or engaged in any kind of sexual behavior. Firstly, the paternalistic infantilism that was/is used when referring to women speaks to this overbearing misogyny that permeates the culture. Secondly, this Madonna/whore complex became the framing of women’s caged sexuality for generations, only to be unearthed by the Second wave Feminist movement’s push for contraception and the promotion of guilt free sex for women. The patriarchy had to pivot. The Madonna/Whore messaging changed from being either/or, to both. Essentially, girls and women need to exude both innocence and oversexed debauchery simultaneously, the only delineation being between public vs. private spaces. To the front facing public, women are to be the innocent, obedient moralist. But in private, they are encouraged to be sexually adventurous. To use a descriptive popular parlance: “A lady in the streets, but a freak in the sheets.” Granted, there may be a subculture or two (based in specific religious interpretations) that still engage in the Madonna/whore script in the traditional way: creating “purity tests” and making fathers be the gatekeepers of their daughters’ virginity, objectively giving it to a man he sees as worthy on their wedding day (Valenti 2009). But it is the amalgamated redux of the system that is currently the most prevalent gatekeeper of women’s sexuality.

Whether women are either supposed to be innocent completely, or only in the presence of others to project patriarchal passivity, it is still control through the lack of female agency. Women in either the original or “New Coke” version of the Madonna/whore complex are still engaging in sex for the purpose and pleasure of men. Sex, especially in the patriarchy is framed as a masculine event. This contributes to the orgasm gap between cisgendered men and women and frames women’s sexuality as relational and performative (Harvey, Jones and Copulsky 2023). This is the misogynistic framing of women’s sexuality as emotional labor for men, which women are compensated for through the power and autonomy they glean from their patriarchal bargain.

Women who perform these “wifely duties” of lover, then mother, can extract the illusion of agency, autonomy and independence they desire. This is what I deem as “Have-it-all Sexism.”

 As I explain in a previous essay from 2013:

"Have it all" Sexism is a term that refers to a new type of sexist female representation in the media that requires female characters that are shown to have careers (with varying degrees of power, agency and autonomy), or who are being portrayed as physically strong (or strong willed), must also identify (or in some cases learn to identify) with traditional female gender norms and scripts.  The message is that it is OK for girls to have agency and social power in our society so long as they don't forget that they also must be wives and mothers (i.e. sex objects and reproductive vessels.) This maintains the value of women to be in their body, and their representation as full and complete human beings is a distant second.”

In a misogynistic patriarchy, the only acceptable way to achieve independence and identity outside of the gendered roles women have been shackled to, is to fulfill those roles first and if there is any time, money, energy and effort left, then women can have a personality. A woman’s individuality and uniqueness is an ancillary addition that is not a part of their systemic patriarchal function. Any portrayal outside of this is summarily punished.

            Entertainment media is one mechanism by which women are both presented and policed. Socialized gender messages are taught and the consequences of not following or rejecting those messages are illustrated through a variety of stories. Here, the Madonna/whore binary (both original recipe and “extra misogyny”) is used as both paragon and criteria for punishment against those who resist.  According to Anna Bogutskaya (2023) this misogyny limits female representation, framing any character that isn’t promoting the patriarchy as “unlikeable”. They may be painted as too angry, too direct, too mean, too sexual, too disorganized, too unhinged, too aloof, or just too odd. These criticisms of character traits are then slyly and erroneously connected to left-leaning political ideologies and notions of liberation to reinforce patriarchal dominance.  Characters that spout clear feminist rhetoric about agency and equal treatment are deemed “crazy”.

““Crazy” is often the default insult for women who exist in ways that upset the status quo; women who have been hurt, women who are tired and overwhelmed, and women who suffer from any form of mental illness are lumped into this one big bag of “crazy””(Bogutskava 2023: 226). 

These portrayals are commodifications of women by the patriarchy to sell to men as:

·         Cautionary tales to create and maintain the heterosexist family unit fidelity  

·         Sexually desirable; a respite from the masculinely insecure emotional vacuum the Patriarchy traps men in.

·         A project they can fix.

Because the politics and ideals of feminism are patriarchally misinterpreted through the lens of unlikability, women’s independence, autonomy and individuality are perceived as a threat. Therefore, there is this misogynistic motivation in fiction and reality to take a single, successful, career-focused independent women and shackle them to the gender roles assigned to them as a form of punishment. (Bates 2020). While there have been several celebrities that this can be applied to; in fiction, this punishment is illustrated through a series of pregnancy tropes.  

 



            There are several media tropes that revolve around pregnancy, and all of them are designed to punish women. The most common trope is the mystical pregnancy. This is where a female character is either supernaturally inseminated by gods, spirits, or other mystical beings, or conceives naturally only to find that the pregnancy is otherworldly. Often this pregnancy is used as punishment for women’s transgressive independence. But through their loss of agency and experiencing the terror and humiliation of this natural body horror, their behavior can be corrected.[3]  In Titane, Alexia is an unlikeable character and therefore she gets punished with a mystical pregnancy that eventually kills her.

            The audience first meets Alexia (Agathe Rousselle) when she is a child, just before she is in a car accident with her father. It is heavily implied, though never stated, that the injuries that she sustained in the wreck motivated her psychopathy. When we meet up with her as an adult after the title sequence, we bear witness to her performative sexuality and a penchant for murder (the news reports indicating that she is a serial killer). These traits seemingly would place Alexia into the classical trope of “The Psycho” (Bogutskava 2023). Her violence is not generated by revenge or retribution for an assault (sexual or otherwise) and there is no inherent empathy we are supposed to have for the character. She is also charming, intelligent and easily offended (all traits of psychosis). According to Bogutskava (2023) this offense has a polymorphic trigger that is different for each media “Psycho”. For Hannibal Lecter it was rudeness. For Amy Dunne it was mediocrity. For Alexia, it is her vulnerability. Anytime that she feels like she gets close to any real emotion, she lashes out. Yet, the violence she commits is not without explanation. It can easily be traced back to the trauma of the car accident and the titanium plate in her head that is overly sensitive, and the source of her emotional detachment. So, it is difficult to say if Alexia fits Bogutskava’s (2023) trope of “The Psycho” completely, as she does not seem to fit all the criteria while embodying the impulsive messiness of the caricature. Still, Ducournau can’t help but punish Alexia with a mystical pregnancy, brought on by the mechaphilia Alexia developed after the accident.   

            Mechaphilia is an intense sexual arousal or attraction to machines. Alexia’s particular fixation is on cars. Therefore, the source of the mystical pregnancy punishment trope is her sex with a car.  In an elegantly lit, cinematically graceful, albeit protracted sequence; the audience witnesses a naked Alexia get inside a Cadillac and proceed to have sex with the car. It should be noted that Alexia, even though she freely enters the car, is a passive participant in the sexual encounter; wrapping the seat belts around her forearms as the car uses its hydraulics to create the motion of penetrative sex. Thankfully, we are spared any actual pornographic images of mechaphilic penetration, though Ducournau makes sure that we see the consequences of the act (bruising on Alexia’s thighs and a motor oil like secretion from her vagina that simulates car semen). This is the first level of punishment.

 Sexual humiliation of women is a popular form of mainstream pornography that depicts women being punched, slapped, spanked, made to cry, gag and brutalized through violent and extreme penetration; usually coupled with humiliating language designed to dehumanize and “other” the female participants (Lust 2010, Bates 2020). While there is legitimacy in a humiliation kink, the kind of humiliation described above is not about and does not involve consent nor depicting equal power for the pleasure of all parties. Instead, it is a way for men to re-establish dominance through the violent sexual humiliation of women, a toxically masculine reformation of male identity. In Titane, that toxic masculinity is represented by the Cadillac, and the ensuing violence brought upon Alexia through the sexual act is her penance for existing outside of the bounds of societal gender roles.

 The second punishment is the mystical pregnancy itself. Ducournau revels in depicting the “womb horror” castigation of pregnancy.  Given the mechaphillic conception, it is quickly apparent that Alexia is carrying a half human hybrid. The camera seems to revel in Alexia’s pain as it fixates on her transforming body: the growth of her titanium womb, the tearing of her skin, her lactation of oil and the agony she goes through trying to hide it from others. At the end of the film, Alexia is absolved for all of her “unlikeable” anti-masculine transgressions by succumbing to a violent death while giving birth; making sure that the final emotion she felt before death was an unending void of fear. Through this lens, by using such tropes, regardless of her intention, Ducournau contributes to the misogyny of patriarchy through the punishment of women that fail to follow or contribute to traditional societal gender norms.



   

       The Humiliation of Aging Masculinity

The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence towards women. Instead, patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation., that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves (bell hooks 2004: 66)

            As girls and women are socialized to be wives and mothers, boys are socialized to be providers and protectors. They are socialized as rational, stoically emotionless and singularly focused beings. This masculinity is extremely fragile. A mannerism, improper word choice or drink selection, and the masculine gender identity built on sexual objectification of women, violence and emotional and physical durability, crumbles to dust. Its form and reformation need to be established within every social situation. Therefore, men are effectively chasing after masculinity, their own form of patriarchal cage unique to men (Walker 2020)[4]. Much of this masculinity is wrapped up in validation and valorizing of youthfulness. The desirable traits of masculinity are always framed through the lens of those in the symbolic springtime of age. Rarely do we get an image of aged masculinity that isn’t a preternatural, Uber masculine hyperbole of the already established traits of strength and power. We do not get an acceptable form of aged masculinity that isn’t melancholically pining for their lost virility, either in strength or sexual prowess. Aging for men, then becomes its own form of humiliation. The slow desiccation of abilities and mental acuity until their value and worth is atomized.

            Ducournau epitomizes the relationship between age and masculinity through Vincent’s narrative journey. An aging firefighter, Vincent struggles with his weaning strength and compounding PTSD brought on by decades of combating fire, and the grief over his lost son. His fear and loss of identity results in him becoming overbearingly authoritarian with other firefighters under his command (comparing himself to God and Adrian/Alexia as Jesus) and contributes to developing an addiction to steroids. Throughout the film, Vincent’s physical and emotional shortcomings are laid bare. It is through these failures that we understand and recognize why he is willing to actively delude himself into believing that Alexia is his long-lost son Adrien. With the loss of his perceived masculinity, and his failure to get it back through synthetic means, the only way for him to reclaim any semblance of masculinity is by holding onto his ability to be a protective father. Therefore, regardless of Alexia’s identity, the lie allows him to piece together the bits of his former masculinity that have withered away by age and inability. This is why he both lashes out whenever that lie is questioned, culminating in his line to Alexia: “I do not care who you are. To me, you will always be my son.” At the end of the film, that paternalistic purpose is refocused and realized as he commits to the protection of Alexia’s hybrid baby; by simply stating “I’m here.”      

 




            A Trans story of acceptance or a Symbolically anti-trans narrative?

            “Horror is a genre that encapsulated a lot of social anxieties. A lot of the things that we as a society are stressed about or uncertain about or titillated and tantalized by the transgressiveness of. Sexuality and gender nonconformity are common themes in horror. What are the images we are producing of these communities and what stereotypes are we using?” (Dr. Jaime Hartless on “Episode 18: Queer Representations of Horror” of The Sociologist’s Dojo Podcast  

 

            Horror has always been a bifurcated place for the LGBTQAI+ community. It has reproduced harmful stereotypes and subverted them, reinforced violence against the marginalized group and provided thoughtful critiques about the harm it causes. Horror has perpetuated and subverted all expectations. “Positive portrayals coexist with more potentially regressive ones that continue to associate queerness with evil.” (Hartless 2021: 5). Trans people especially have been underrepresented in horror and are often misrepresented when they are. From Sleepaway Camp, Psycho and Dress to Kill, to The Crying Game and The Silence of the Lambs trans people have historically portrayed the villain; but more nefariously, their villainous motivations were often framed as being derived from their gender and sexual “otherness”. However, as we have taken the slowest of baby steps toward a culture of trans acceptance (from which our current administration is taking strides away from), recently, more positive trans visibility has been seen. Even in the horror genre, there are several trans actors that are redefining their presence in the Horror landscape onscreen. Thus, as horror seems to have a history of being an exploitative carnival where cisgendered people can gawk, laugh and be terrified of the existence of those outside the binary, simultaneously, it has been at the forefront of trans representation, the conventions of the horror genre allowing for gender bending and boundary breaking behavior that can culminate into acceptance.




            A lot has been written about Titane as a trans narrative that swings the pendulum between  elation and revulsion. The film has been heralded by some as a wonderful transmasc love story of acceptance that provides a hopeful allegory for those still terrified to come out to their parents. While those more critical of the film see the inclusion of the trans identity as a plot device, the protagonist using gender deceit as a cover to avoid accountability. The copout is to say that this is a perfect example of why art is subjective; that it can mean anything to everyone, even the opposite. Yet sociologically it can be understood that two things can exist at the same time. These conflicting pro/Anti trans ideas run parallel with each other throughout the film. Ducournau gives just enough to allow for a dual reading of the film that both meets and subverts expectations. There are linear through lines that audience members can follow that will present a person coming into their own sense of self through a transmasc transformation from which the character finds unconditional love and acceptance for the first time. Conversely, there is also a complete throughline of a serial killer who is using a trans narrative as a method of escape and their frustration with having to hide their identity. However, there is also considerable evidence that suggests that Ducournau, understanding the way that the film could be interpreted, decided to first present the Trans identity as false, only becoming real through the love and acceptance Vincint gives to Alexia. In this sense, Alexia can’t fully embrace and accept their identity as Adrien until they felt safe to do so. Vincint gave them that space. The new identity is solidified when Adrien calls Vincint “Papa”. While this is undercut during the birthing scene where Adrien deadnames himself and re-identifies as Alexia, it still points to the social construction of sexuality and the gender fluidity of sexuality on screen.       

           


            The Redeeming Power of Unconditional Love

            Through the process of traditional, binary focused gender socialization, love is an emotion that is taught to be embraced by girls and women and barred by boys and men. Boys and men are taught to relinquish their love at adulthood and to calcify their emotional selves. Girls and women are taught to embrace love, as both their primary criteria when searching for a partner, and the abundant emotional commodity they sell through relationships. This again, is the way that a heterosexist capitalist patriarchy conditions cisgendered men and women into gender specific servitude; with neither being satisfied.     

            Within a general social order, love and affection are valorized through domestication. Sexuality gets refined into sublimation of love and the social order constructs it as only acceptable in private spaces, relegating and controlling sexual expression and legitimating it through love (Marcuse 1966). This focus on love is then translated to labor, and we then learn to love and enjoy work (often time as a representation of our identity) which helps to maintain social institutions and the order of a civilization (Marcuse 1966). Love then, especially for men, is weaponized and used to shore up the economy. Men start to see love as a type of satisfaction from work and the economic success that comes with it. bell hooks (2001) recognizes this as greed, a lust for money. This lust for money overtakes the love of others, as we are willing to put our lives in precarious positions, even those that are life threatening, for money. We cannot even escape the love of money when we seek love through partnerships. Capitalism has permeated every aspect of our culture, and so, when we are looking for companionship, we often view it through a capitalistic lens.

            According to hooks (2001)

        “When it comes to matters of the heart, we are encouraged to treat partners as though they are objects we can pick up, use, and then discard and depose of at will…When greedy consumption is the order of the day, dehumanization becomes acceptable” (p:115)

 

            After the accident, Alexia, through the function of her trauma, brain damage or both, looks at relationships as transactional. Faced with new experiences, she is unclear of how to act or how she is to respond. She does not know what she likes or what she wants. This lack of understanding of her body and her own desires causes her to lash out violently rather than deal with any kind of emotional complexity. Each sexual encounter is followed by violent murder. Yet, as she alters her identity to escape, she faces Vincent who gives her unconditional love and support regardless of her behavior. This is anathematic to Alexia’s transactional understanding, and she lashes out. Afterword, Vincent is still there, with comfort, stern safety, and sometimes tough love.

            When asked in interviews about the core message of the film, Ducournau consistently stated that it was unconditional love. The love between two broken people that heals them. Indeed, love has the power to change everything. The way that we see the past and live with it in a new way (hooks 2001). Alexia and Vincent find in each other a healing communion of love. Alexia finds the love and acceptance she has never experienced. Vincent finds a chance to end his heartache and fulfill his paternalistic drive. First to Alexia in the persona of Adrien, and then to her baby.  All they needed to receive was love, and that is the only thing Vincent had left to give.


 


CONCLUSION

            Julia Ducournau’s second film is not for the faint of heart, though heart it does have, deep in its viscera. Behind all of the serial killing mechaphillic feminine punishing, and possibly transphobic muddled messages, beats a story about acceptance and compassion. While all the themes that it presents aren’t equally fleshed out or serviced in equal measure, the amalgamated space of body and horror in which it lives allows the film to run on vibes, fuel and chrome. Thereby complicating our relationship with gender, ourselves and each other.   

 

RFERENCES

Bates, Laura 2020. Men Who Hate Women: From Incels to Pickup Artists: The Truth about Extreme Misogyny and How It Affects US All. Naperville. Source Books

Ben-Hadj, Emmanuelle 2021. “Making Room for Horror: The Adversity of Genre in the French Film Industry” PhD dissertation Deitrich School of Arts and Sciences University of Pittsburgh. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/41404/32/41404.pdf

Brechenmacher, Saskia 2025. “The New Global Struggle Over Gender, Rights, and Family Values” in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Retrieved on 10/28/2025 Retrieved at https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/06/the-new-global-struggle-over-gender-rights-and-family-values?lang=en

Brutlag, Brian 2013. “Gender Representation in Disney’s ‘Frozen’ and Hollywood’s “girl” problem.” In The Sociologist’s Dojo  Retrieved on 11/1/2025 Retrieved at  https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2013/12/gender-representation-in-disneys-frozen.html

___________ 2022. “Episode 18: Queer Representations of Horror with Dr. Jaime Hartless.” In The Sociologist’s Dojo Podcast Retrieved on 11/1/2025 Retrieved at: https://thesociologistsdojo.libsyn.com/episode-18-queer-representations-in-horror-with-dr-jaime-hartless

Bogutskaya, Anna 2023. Unlikable Female Characters: The women pop culture wants you to hate New York: Source Books.

Emanuelle Ben Hadj 2021. “Making Room for Horror: The Adversity of Genre in the French Film Industry” PhD dissertation. Detrich School of Arts and Sciences University of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania

Hartless, Jaime 2021.”Horror as a Pedagogical Tool for Teaching Sexualities” in Teaching Sociology pp 1-12 American Sociological Association.

Harvey, Penny, Erielle Jones and Daniel Copulsky 2023. “The Relational Nature of Gender, the Pervasiveness of Heteronormative Sexual Scripts, and the Impact on Sexual Pleasure.” In Archives of Sexual Behavior 52(3) pp-1195-1212.

hooks, bell 2000. Feminism is for Everybody Cambridge. South End Press

_________ 2001. All About Love: New Visions  New York: William and Morrow  

_________ 2004. The Will to Change: Men Masculinity and Love  New York: Washington Square Press

Lust, Erika 2010. Good Porn: A Woman’s guide  New York Seal Press

Marcuse, Herbert 1966. Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud  Boston: Beacon Press

Valenti, Jessica 2009. The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women New York: Seal Press   

Walker, Alicia 2020. Chasing Masculinity: Men Validation and Infidelity New York: Palgrave Macmillan



[1] And thanks to the Warren Court- The 8 year Supreme Court make up responsible for the most landmark pieces of legislation

[2] This is double speak because, like mental Illness and Gun Control, these conservative groups only seem to care about girls and children when they are using it to fight against something else.

[3] Meta textually, the misogyny of Joss Whedon can be measured by his use of the mystical pregnancy trope twice on the character of Cordiella Chase  in the Buffy  spin off show Angel twice after Chase’s actor Charisma  Carpenter rejected his sexual advances.

[4] Through the establishment and reinforcement of stoicism at a very young age, boys are emotionally stunted causing arrested development and a reliance on women for their emotion work. Women, particularly sexual partners, then become the primary source of men fulfillment of intimacy. Unfortunately, because sex and intimacy are inextricably linked for men there is a fundamental misunderstanding that takes place. Women being socialized to have an easier accessibility of diverse emotions like empathy and compassion; see them as separate from sexual attraction whereas men do not. Therefore, when women provide emotional support for men based on basic human decency, men misinterpret this as emotional intimacy and a sign of attraction (Walker 2020). This again maintains a reliance of men on women to meet all their emotional needs    

Tuesday, September 9, 2025

'You're Out of Order!': Copaganda and the Laundering of the Criminal Justice System's Adversarial Approach Through Film and TV.

 


INTRODUCTION

            There has always been an entanglement of The Criminal Justice System (CJS) and the media. Historically, that relationship has been antagonistic, especially in the news media where it is contentious to downright hostile.  Journalists were known to pepper elected officials, law enforcement, and legal representatives (judges and lawyers) with pointed questions that were designed to get at facts and uncover truths. This was often done in the face of corruption, and the political will of the powerful being endlessly protected by the free flow of cash. Stories would get killed, and journalists would be pressured to abandon their integrity along with their story. The relationship was necessarily tense. A feeling rooted and enshrined in the first amendment. Yet, this relationship began to change with the rise of Copaganda”- a special kind of propaganda employed by police, prosecutors, and the news media that stokes fear of police recorded crime and distorts society’s response to it (Karakatsanis 2025). While much of the examples of “Copaganda” used today are present in the intimately integrated intersection between corporate news media and the CJS, the first and most persistent intersection is in popular culture. This brief paper will look at the development and proliferation of “Copaganda,” as it effectively launders the image of the Criminal Justice system through film and television: shaping public perception while increasing compliance to and participation in the adversarial carceral system.

 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

            The US Criminal Justice System is based on an adversarial approach. There are often only two sides, the Prosecution and the Defense, which are contradictorily constructed. Ideologically, we have lofty platitudes about “innocent until proven guilty” and while that presumption of innocence has been codified by the Constitution since 1895, the Supreme Court in a variety of case rulings have narrowed the focus of the Burden of Proof over the last 50 years; particularly in a response to immigration enforcement (Marouf 2023).[1] Additionally, while the burden of proof is on the prosecution to determine guilt, the weight of this burden is reduced to the point of alleviation in practice, as court procedure favors the Prosecution.

            According to Fictelberg (2023):

In the Adversarial system, the lone individual accused of a crime stands in opposition to THE STATE, that is, the prosecutor and the police, with all their funding, staff, and support. The State has so much more power than defendants that without some serious protections, it would be easy for the government to convict innocent people. [While] the American System gives defendants certain legal protections…effectively [making] the government…go to trial with one hand behind its back to prevent it from abusing its authority, the court system is [still] massively weighted against criminal defendants.

That weight is usually the structures and procedures of the Criminal Justice system. In policing, police are allowed unparalleled discretion and can lie during interrogations. In the courts, Prosecutors have discretion on who and what to charge. They often hide exculpatory evidence by flooding the defense with documents during discovery and set the terms of the legal negotiation called a plea bargain- at tactic that is fueled by the government’s terrorism of a suspect until they relinquish their right to a trial. Therefore, even though the government has one hand tied behind its back, as Fictelberg (2023) describes, in their free hand is a loaded gun. The Adversarial approach to the US Criminal Justice System lends itself to a dramaturgical analysis.

 Dramaturgy is a theatrical term that was first introduced into Sociology by Erving Goffman. Goffman (1959) asserts that theater can be used as a metaphor to explain social interactions describing them as performances, and everyone in society as “actors”. We “social actors” are trying to learn the social script and maintain control over how our behavior is interpreted, called impression management (Goffman 1959).  To that end, our daily life drama is divided into Front Stages and Back Stages. The Front Stage is where the performance is presented to an audience, and the Backstage is where that performance is dropped and edited. However, since we develop and maintain multiple relationships at the same time, we are constantly performing for an audience while simultaneously editing performances in the Backstage, all to control how other people interpret our behavior (Goffman, 1959).

In a previous essay, I discussed the symbiotic relationship between Naturalism’s acting style and Goffman’s Dramaturgy. I (2021) state:  

  The normalization of Goffmanian ideas of social performance parallels the rise and dominance of naturalist/realist acting in its profession. This then creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for the dominance of both Goffman’s and Naturalism’s perspectives; they validate each other. By using Dramatic terms as a framework, Goffman validates realism in acting as a legitimate form of getting at social truth, and Naturalism’s continued dominance maintains the relevance of Goffman’s ideas as a valid analysis.

The more emotionally resonant acting is authentic to human emotions, the more Goffman’s ideas get validated. The consumption of media by an audience then makes this exchange cyclical. Naturalism on screen is attempting to be a genuine expression of human experience; consumers of that media then use those cinematic performances as templates to shape their own behavior. This causes a mirroring effect where individuals not only become a reflection of their society, but specifically the media that we have internalized. Similarly, this desired cinematic verisimilitude extends from just individual performances into the greater construction of the broader narrative; thereby making organizations and institutions like the Criminal Justice system susceptible to being shaped and understood as Drama.

            Under the adversarial approach, The US Criminal Justice System (CJS) becomes theater. The opposition that is threaded throughout its tryptic structure is easily constructed into the familiar narrative of protagonists and antagonists at every level. All aspects of the CJS have been framed by this cinematic binary. Cops, criminals, Prosecution, Defense, Prisoner, Prison Guard all have been constructed to be both heroes or villains depending on the genre and the medium. Thus, the antagonism of the Criminal Justice System makes it a perfect backdrop for cinematic exploration; even drawing on actual cases to increase the depictions’ procedural credibility. While there is always some amount of dramatic license that is employed in the stories of the Criminal Justice System, because Naturalism is still the reigning cinematic language, there is a minimizing of the audience’s suspension of disbelief, and a blurring of the line between art and reality.

This amalgamation of reality and art is fueled by the frequency of personal interactions with the Criminal Justice system. If one has minimal contact with the police, lawyers, and the general overarching legal system, that individual is more likely to understand the Criminal Justice System based around the media that they consume.[2] This consumption can also motivate some people to join the CJS, resulting in some police officers, lawyers and judges ultimately inspired into their profession by cinema; thereby, effectively cosplaying a job in real life. However, because films often remove activities that do not service the plot and move the story forward, cinematic portrayals of professions often leave out essential tasks and work that do not fit in with the narrative. Even if the cinematic language has dramatic license and is less about the accuracy of portrayals (they often aren’t) and is more about their ability to captivate the audience; the charisma in those performances is infectious leading to emulation.  

In the United States, positions of authority are pursued and coveted. Simultaneously, all people are socially conditioned/pressured to pursue and covet those positions. However, the collusion of various social institutions and organizations into a series of “complexes” (Particularly the military and prison variety) keep a moratorium on both achievement and access to those positions. Wealth and status are centralized at the top. The function of popular media in this endeavor allows a vicarious access to that power through characters and storylines, even if it is a fantasy. Thereby shaping the public perception of these systems. Thus, the media arm of the Military and Prison Industrial Complex is about both recruitment and the propagandic laundering of the Criminal Justice System’s image.



History of Entertainment Media Copaganda

Sociologically, the power of the media to shape public opinion is undeniable. It is a prime agent of the social learning process known as socialization. This process is a part of any social system, designed to maintain a populace that is conforming, productive, and law-abiding. To that end, the media is employed by the institutions of power[3], to shape the public’s perception into compliance.  Film and TV have always been a part of this process being the “soft power” influence that often accompanies hard power changes of policy and authoritative practices. Propaganda through fictionalized content (film and TV) shifts the culture to be more pliable to policies, specifically executive orders and declarations of a state of emergency that reinforce the value and importance of institutional control.  While all social institutions do this, it is the Criminal Justice System that uses the media to frame acquiescence to authority under the guise of social order; thereby implying that failure to submit to these conditions will result in punishment. This is Copaganda.

 As stated, Copaganda refers to a specific type of media propaganda that is used by the US Criminal Justice System to launder the image of these three pillars (Police, Courts and Punishment) to assuage the public and condition them into apathy or acquiescence, while attempting to increase recruitment to these areas so that the structures of power remain unfettered. Much of this is done in the News media. Over the last 70 years, examples abound of stories that are pursued and structured to frame the criminal justice system as a bastion of hope and democracy. In that time, the CJS has used film and TV to valorize those in its thrall to be noble and righteous, thereby normalizing an authoritarian state.




            Phase 1: Boomer TV  

       The use of film and TV to shape the public perception of the US Criminal Justice System has been continuous since the 1950’s. Programs like The Andy Griffith Show were some of the early examples of the manipulation of the public perception of police. Here, Police officers were either seen as thoughtful, kind and wholesomely good (the Titular Andy played by Griffith himself) or a bumbling but good-hearted bumpkin (the character of Barney played by Don Knotts). This continued with additional shows in the 1950-1960’s like Dragnet and The Untouchables. These shows solidified the image of the police as not only wholesome community figures, but also those who were committed to justice and rooting out corruption. Yet, this image had a stratifying effect.

These images of the police were a part of the overall media reconstructive efforts to reestablish binary and heteronormative traditional gender and family norms. Norms that were believed to be suspended or lost due to the logistical upheaval of WWII. In this traditionally conservative mind, there needed to be a reorganization of the family and civilian life that fit with a white conservative Christian agenda; a pop culture palate cleanser to coincide with the public policies that were racially isolating neighborhoods and returning white women back into the home (Baker 2013)[4]. This was a softening and reshaping of the US to downplay its growing diversity and promote a hegemonically white ideology that, even at the time, did not reflect reality. As Baker (2013) points out, during this post war period between 1948-1955 over two thirds of family households owned a TV, especially after the white exodus to racially homogenized suburbia.

 Racial and class differences were important to the development of “Copaganda” during the post-war period. Baker (2013) mentions that many of the homes where the television came standard were also those communities that were exclusively white. Thus, suburban white families were exclusively targeted by these “copaganda” efforts to shape not only a favorable image of police in the minds of the middle-class white public but begin to construct a stereotypical image of “criminal” as something racially “other”. An image which will crystallize in the subsequent decades. With the isolation afforded to them by their newly obtained post-war class status, and the lack of middle-class white family’s interaction with more poorer people of color, allowed the solidification of the racist framing of police as the protagonist paragons and the criminals as the antagonistic deviant people of color.



            Phase II: Reality TV and “COPS!”

During the 1970’s and 1980’s we saw a tonal shift in the Criminal Justice System focusing on drug crimes. This recontextualization of resources and perspective led to the establishment of the Drug Enforcement Agency and their mission that would later be known as “The War on Drugs” (Balko 2021). This led to the military beginning to share weapons, gear and training with local police forces. Police officers began to not see themselves as community officers but rather, in a more militarized way- a warrior that is serving the agenda of the system rather than the people that they are supposed to serve (Balko 2021). The weakening of the Castle Doctrine and the institution of “No Knock” raids resulted in the violent apprehension of suspects and increased sentencing severity for non-violent drug offences. From these practices and ideologies bore out different sentencing severity for different types of drugs that disproportionally impact more communities of color, which justified the implementation of three strikes laws that caused our prison population to balloon to 2.5 million people[5].

For entertainment media, these police practices created a catch-22. The desire to show this situation accurately still reinforced these negative images of Black and Brown people because of the social conditions of living through and being targeted by the CJS during this period of War on Drugs. Yet, by having that authenticity they are often contributing to “Copaganda” and the criminalizing of Black and Brown people. This is primarily because a lot of media that can fall under the “Copaganda” umbrella is focused on  the authority figures of the institution. They are the protagonists, the ones that the camera and the audience follow. Because the basic structure of narrative storytelling humanizes protagonists, which in this case, causes the audience to be conditioned to empathize with the police, prosecutors and the punishers, this process ultimately frames those caught in the dragnet (pun intended) of the Criminal Justice system as antagonistic and deviant to the security and order of the system itself. This reciprocally fuels the Adversarial structure of the Criminal Justice system.  

One of the best examples of this Catch-22 is the development of the Cops tv show in 1989. Originally billed as “reality TV”, this non scripted show follows various police officers in their nightly patrols of their respective cities. Based on the structure of the show, supported by the adversarial organization of the Criminal Justice System and the dynamic drama such a situation would produce, most episodes would cherry pick over hours and days of footage; choosing to air the actions they found to be the most entertaining.

A Guardian Investigation in 2020 also found that:

·         The show crafted an image of policing in which the crime rate was four times higher than the data justified and that the police closing rate was significantly higher than the national average; constructing an image of a more dangerous society, and the benefit and importance of the Police force itself.

·         In exchange for access to Police officers and being able to ride along with them; the Police departments negotiated ‘final cut’ from producers of the show.

·         While they were told that everyone that was featured on the show signed a release form, out of 11 individuals The Guardian journalists talked to, only one of them stated that they gave consent.

·         Episodes often aired without printing retractions when police officers made mistakes. The producers would keep rerunning the arrests in syndication even when the encounter with police ended in releases or non-convictions.  

·         A lot of the entertaining selling points of a lot of episodes were simultaneously violations of human rights with use of excessive force and no consequences or repercussions experienced by the officers on screen.

·         This greatly affected the public perception of police officers, and spiked recruitment, with many individuals deciding to become police officers from watching the show.

The Guardian article was a part of the broader pushback against police brutality during the summer of 2020 in response to the unsubstantiated murders of George Floyd and Brianna Taylor. Because of this cultural moment, and the pushback from the public, Cops parent company, Paramount, dropped the show ahead of its 33rd season in June 2020. Yet even a symbolic victory such as this would only last so long. In September, 2020, production of Cops  resumed; having found a different home at the Fox News’ streaming service called: Fox Nation. It is currently in its 37th Season.       

 


            Phase III: Dick Wolf and “the CSI Effect”

 One of the biggest contributors to the cultural apparatus of “Copaganda” in the late 20th-21st century is Dick Wolf, creator and producer of the police procedural legal drama, Law and Order, and its plethora of spin-offs and parallel programing: The Chicago franchise (PD, Fire, Med) and FBI Franchise (Original, Most Wanted and International). This programming beginning in 1990 and continuing into the present has had a generational impact on the public perception of policing and the broader Criminal Justice System (CJS).

In the last thirty five years, crime procedural entertainment has consistently been the most watched genre on TV. This litany of pro-cop catechism includes multiple genres across a variety of networks (Bakkenes 2023). Out of this crowd, the Law-and-Order franchise stands above as the paragon: both the longest running franchise and the one that is eternally emulated; producing a proliferation of police programing progeny.[6] This is partly due to the way that the industry loves to clone what they perceive as successful in pursuit of capital. However, police procedurals and their structure, also tap into the public’s investigative curiosity- taking the viewers on a mystery hunt that concludes with a cinematic catharsis of answer-finding, often framed in the narrative as “the truth”.

Unfortunately, this “truth” that these “law and ordercrime dramas present is insidious.   Their basic premises offer a fictional narrative within recognizable institutions, while using identifiable procedures and language which socialize individuals into compliance, acceptance and adulation of authority. Through this lens and a desire to create an authentic portrayal of the CJS that is reflective of the time-period, these narratives will tackle topics that are in the cultural zeitgeist. The 90’s through the 2010’s saw stories dealing with terrorism, immigration and the opioid crisis. These stories became so intertwined with the increase in news media consumption that there was difficulty in disentangling them. This is further complicated when these cop-shows adapt storylines from actual criminal cases. Law and Order was one of the first programs to pull directly from reality; marketing those stories as being “ripped from the headlines”, going so far as to barely change the names or circumstances of the case, making real victims feel exploited. The show would then add cinematic verisimilitude by using actual legal and political celebrities to increase its claim of authenticity (Bakkenes 2023). Yet, this representation of reality only extends as far as it creates good drama, because these shows also present a distorted world of higher crime rates in which moral righteousness is above laws and rights of other people.

According to The Color of Change (2020) Many of these programs:

·         Present protagonist “Good Guys” as bending or breaking legal rules in greater numbers than the perceived “Bad Guys” by about 8-1

·         Do not recognize the existence of racial bias in policing and criminal procedure, suggesting that they are race neutral. Under such a framing, these shows would validate racial stereotypes. 34% of victims were white men, 38% white women

·         Present the message that reform of the CJS is not needed

·         Have both showrunners and writers that are exceedingly white (81%)

While there has been little accountability since this report was published, these creators and showrunners have no sense of responsibility on behalf of their audience to present stories with even a modicum of nuance. They do not recognize that their work having a tone of authenticity and realism can have consequences. Instead, they play ignorant; shocked when they learn that what they produce makes an impact beyond entertainment. Law and Order and its various spin-offs have been responsible for a cultural shift in the understanding of the criminal justice system; with many people believing it’s a primary educator (Bakkenes 2023). Yet, when Warren Leight, former Executive Producer of Law and Order: SVU was interviewed on a podcast about the show, he stated:

“We’ve also found out over time, and this is a little anxiety-provoking for me, that a lot of cops aren’t trained in how to do their job in certain cases of sexual assault, and a lot of cops get a lot of their information from watching SVU,” (Roman, 2019).

This effect is widespread. Many of these popular TV shows increased interest in the CJS’s vast and various professions beyond law enforcement. Many soon to be college students in the early 2000s wanted to get into forensic science to become crime scene investigators after watching CSI or NCIS.  Of course, that was before they realize that many College programs require both a Criminology and Biology degrees.  Over the years, many professors in these fields have had to charitably dispel their students of the pseudoscience of TV forensics.  Even recently, during the Confirmation hearings for Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Senator Thom Tillis, in his questioning of KBJ for her seat, stated: ““I’m not an attorney, I just watch Law & Order from time to time,” (Bakkenes 2023)[7]



This impact was so prevalent and all-consuming, that it created a mandala-like resonance of “The CSI Effect”. This was the name of the false belief that the growing popularity of forensic science on mainstream television can affect public opinion to the degree it compromises the integrity of a criminal trial; specifically on jurors expectations of certainty of evidence in the courtroom. However, Podlas (2005) identifies that it is inconclusive as to whether this effect is legitimate, as more studies need to be conducted. Thus, the “CSI Effect” could also be understood as anti-establishment; solidified by prosecutors and police because of a greater difficulty proving their cases beyond the inherit trust in the system; which is generally a good thing. Podlas (2005) even obliviously notes: “CSI horror stories of justice denied may drive legal “reforms” when no reforms are needed.” This statement is reminiscent of the kinds of “Copaganda” found in classic Law and Order, which as of this writing, has been resurrected and is about to premiere its 25th season.

 

SOCIAL ANALYSIS (CASE STUDIES)

To illustrate the impact of “Copaganda on public perception and decision-making in the US through the adherence to the Adversarial Criminal Justice system in film and TV, requires example case studies. Each Case study will be organized by specific branch of the CJS they represent and will discuss the ramifications of those images in the populace through policy and social movements, where applicable.[8]




Policing

The main staple of the “Copaganda” marketing is the police officer. In every police film, regardless of genre, the cop is usually the Protagonist, the “good guy”. Even when there is an antagonist that is a “brother of the badge”, there is another cop that is there to set them straight. The architype of “The Rogue Cop” is shaded differently depending on whether the actions are coming from a protagonist or antagonist lens. An antagonist’s actions, while outside of the legal limits of police power, are seen as “going too far”- whereas the cop who believes in systemic order, is set out to stop them (i.e. Training Day). When “The Rogue Cop is the protagonist, it is usually the “one man on the edge” archetype, the singular badass that breaks the rules because his (these roles are usually portrayed by men) moral compass is the more important driver of justice than bureaucratic red tape. Here, it is the courts and the system that they frequently flagrantly flaunt. Typical examples of this are the loner cops of the 1970’s and 80’s, your “Dirty” Harry Callahan’s, and John Mclaine’s (Die Hard). However, sometimes the “Rogue Cop” is unwillingly partnered with another cop as in the Lethal Weapon film series, creating a mismatched “Buddy Cop” situation. Regardless, the stipulations of the genre require a glut of property and physical violence with zero accountability for the officers involved, who usually walk away with a quip and a smile.

A steady diet of this kind of imagery is designed to be predominantly appealing to cisgendered boys and men, interweaving concepts of masculinity with honor, heroism, and violence. This mechanism of gender socialization preys on the masculine provider/protector model, conditioned through cultural reinforcement to be a desired attitude of men. This attitude is then contextualized and made tangible through warrior style training and promotion of police discretion within law enforcement. The warrior style training perpetuates both hyper (read as “fragile”) masculinity and the militarization of the police. An outlook which transforms the citizens officers are supposed to protect, into potential threats- seeing the innocent as the enemy (Balko 2021). Add to this the qualified immunity from prosecution granted to officers, and their discretion to detain and arrest; the police have a lot of unchecked power. This freedom allows officers to easily emulate their favorite fictional flat-foot and develop a culture (Blue Lives Matter) that shields them from criticism. Simultaneously, this verbose desire for vigilantism quickly withers when faced with real opportunities to be the hero (Uvalde, TX).

As I stated in a previous essay in (2022): One of those Heroes is Frank Castle: The Punisher:

 “The Punisher gets embraced by the police and the military because, much like the militainment films of the 80’s featuring Schwarzenegger and Stallone, Castle doles out vigilante justice; often without consequence, remorse, or accountability. This is what a lot of men are socialized to desire, power: the ability to do what you want even when others resist. Even though the creator of the Punisher has stated that the character is misinterpreted; and should be seen as a failure of law and order; through Castle’s masculinization and marketing, many cismen embrace him as the opposite; as the True Justice of Masculinity. 

  According to Abraham Riesman (2020) Frank Castle seems to be the patron saint of police, Military, and Private security:

 

    “Marine Corps veteran Christopher Neff…owns thousands of dollars in Punisher comics and merchandise, has a Punisher tattoo, and even designed one of his wedding cakes to look like the character’s distinctive skull logo. Neff goes out of his way to say he keeps his admiration for the character “safely in the realm of fantasy,” but as far as fantasies go, it’s a powerful one. “Frank Castle is the ultimate definition of Occam’s razor for the military,” he says. “Don’t worry about uniforms, inspections, or restrictive rules of engagement. Find the bad guys. Kill the bad guys. Protect the innocent. Any true warrior? That’s the dream.”

 

Jesse Murrieta… served an array of roles in law enforcement, including working at a Department of Homeland Security prison, transporting federal inmates with the U.S. Marshals, and doing freelance security work, and he’s a Punisher addict. He’s particularly enamored of the skull: He owns rings in its shape, wears a dog tag bearing its image, and spray-painted it onto the body armor he wears for work. Like Neff, Murrieta sees an element of wish fulfillment in the character. “Frank Castle does to bad guys and girls what we sometimes wish we could legally do,” he says. “Castle doesn’t see shades of grey, which, unfortunately, the American justice system is littered with and which tends to slow down and sometimes even hinder victims of crime from getting the justice they deserve.”         

Yet, the attitude and marketing strategy of this ‘Militainment’ only goes so far as its ability to bestow masculinity on others. It allows men to fill in their cracks of insecurity through the selling of this imagery and iconography, safely, and without consequences. It is a part of the performativity of Masculinity. Men learn through this marketing, to mask fear and self-doubt through unearned confidence and bravado, or that they need to drown it with alcohol or other forms of self-medication, or you’ll be able to ignore it with a big enough gun in your hands. The image of the Punisher is just the latest costume masculinity offers to men, then uses it as an irrational standard by which to judge them.  

Unfortunately, what this illuminates is that even factoring in corrupt police officers that do commit crimes, there are an even greater number of officers persuaded by masculinity and militarization that wish to unleash indiscriminate violence and murder to make that “dream” a bloody reality if given the chance; meaning if they are shielded from consequences. Consider this in the context of ICE immigration recruitment, their use of White Supremacy rhetoric, and the National Guard deployment in DC (coming soon to Chicago and Baltimore).

There are two pieces of “Copaganda” militainment that interestingly wrestle with this contradiction between the desired image of the cop the populace gets socialized to, and the actual police officer as a community figure.  The first is Hot Fuzz, one of the three flavors of the Cornetto Trilogy starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and secondly, the series Brooklyn 99 with the character of Jake Peralta played by Andy Sandberg.

Hot Fuzz tells the story of a London Cop Nicolas Angel (Peg) who is so bureaucratically belligerent that he gets transferred to a small town up north with a partner, Danny Butterman, that is obsessed with cop films (Frost). As the film progresses, and in direct contradiction to Angel’s assertion that the images and sequences in the films that Danny covets are a complete fantasy, both characters end up living through all the tropes of action cop cinema. While this is clearly satirical, there is still a gleeful reinforcement of the genre while using the reality of police paperwork as a comedic button. Regardless, the image of the hero cop is intact by film’s end.

Similarly, Jake Peralta (Sandberg) of the fictional 99th precinct set in Brooklyn, NY; grew up on the Cop Action genre and idolizes the character of John Mclaine from the film Die Hard. Much of the early comedy of the series, and a part of Jake’s initial character arc, is the realization that actual police work is decidedly not like it is in the movies and tv he idolizes. Jake often comments with comedic frustration how different a real cop is from a fictional one.[9]  The Irony here is that even though there is this kind of commentary throughout the show, broadly Brooklyn 99 still launders the image of the police officer pretty effectively and was rightfully criticized for it. In response,  the show rewrote their final season to comment on COVID lockdown and to address Black Lives Matter protests and police discretion, corruption, and brutality. Unfortunately, this was met with mixed success as the show attempted to synthesize systemic inequality and an over reach of power into a single character: Police Union representative, Frank O’Sulivan, rather than really addressing the endemic nature of the problem.




Courts

The Courts are where the adversarial justice system really shines. As mentioned above, the drama of the adversarial system is intentionally cinematic. Courtroom dramas are intriguing and suspenseful; structured around the narrative desire for justice. Consistently, legal films present the protagonist as an intrepid underdog- once again searching for the truth in the face of either the system, or specific opposition from the other side. These protagonists are often framed as morally superior, and they are dogged in the pursuits of justice like Addicus Finch portrayed by Gregory Peck in the film adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird.

Many of the classic legal films often follow those that are seeking to uncover injustice through the justice system itself. As we are told many times in these films, “justice is blind”. The result of this is an interesting blend of contradictions: There are classic legal films that are good examples of several aspects of the legitimate interworking’s of the Courts: Lumet’s 12 Angry Men shows us reasonable doubt in real time, My Cousin Vinny gives us a look into proper witness examination and cross examination, and Legally Blonde provides the briefest glimpse into the life of a 1L law student. These portrayals are accurate enough that some of them are recommended for aspiring law students. Yet, a more interesting commonality within all of these films is that faith in the system is never shaken. In fact, these films are often recommended because watching them may restore faith in a system for which someone has become disillusioned. The message is clear; trust the system to be the solution to the problems it causes. This is a call to conformity.




-          The master’s tools won’t dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never bring about genuine change – Audre Lorde (2007:112)

When comparing the cinematic portrayal of the court system, and its “blind” (pun intended) faith in the system to dispense justice, they often ignore the tactics available (typically exclusive to prosecutors) that make sure that winning is achievable despite justice (Fichtelberg 2023). Two of those tactics are plea bargaining and prosecutorial discretion.

   Plea Bargaining is a legal agreement a defendant makes with a prosecutor to plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid prosecution and possible conviction for a more serious charge. According to Fichtelberg (2023), 95 % of criminal cases end in a plea. This is often done under duress as the defendants are afraid (the framing of a harsh sentence also contributes to that fear), are unfamiliar with the court process and/or do not have enough money to pay for a competently "zealous" attorney that may fight for them. This needs to be considered when we evaluate the validity of choice in this context. A likely outcome is for individuals to "give up" their constitutional rights due to this pressure and take the deal.  This is because, as Fichtelberg (2023) notes, "If everyone [who’s) charged with a crime suddenly exercised their constitutional rights..." the system would implode. "Plea Bargains make the Criminal Justice System possible." (p215).

Plea bargains are rarely used in cinematic court cases. They are often framed as a cop out, a sign that the attorney representing the defense doesn’t care. Tom Cruise’s Daniel Kaffee is presented as aloof and is repeatedly admonished throughout A Few Good Men for even suggesting a plea deal for his clients. When the protagonists are prosecutors, plea bargaining is often framed as way to avoid consequences and culpability- many presenting it as a “slap on the wrist.” Prosecutors will dramatically reject cash settlements because they want a moral victory even if it is pyrrhic.

The second tactic is the practice of prosecutorial discretion. This is the ability for the Prosecutors to charge individuals to the fullest extent of the law. It is consistently used alongside plea bargaining to terrorize defendants into taking the plea. It is often phrased that “they will get ‘the book’ thrown at them” if they don’t take a deal. This legal behavior, specifically prosecutorial discretion, is often framed narratively in film and TV as corruption due to a lack of accountability oversight. This results in multiple films and TV that show corruption in two different ways depending on whether the DA or the Defense are the protagonists. For the defense, there is an importance of using the system to circumvent and eventually root out corruption. For the prosecution, the use of discretion is evocation of the tools of a corrupt system to achieve justice. Both claims are fictitious. The reality is that the adversarial dimension of our Criminal Justice system motivates both the protagonists and antagonists. They each want to win; the rest is only justification. This similarity of action between defense and prosecution points to a cultural shift away from the black and white morality of the 1950’s court dramas into something that is more morally grey (Asimow 2017). A googolplex of examples from The Lincon Lawyer and A Civil Action to Breaking Bad and its spinoff series Better Call Saul, all play in this arena, using the system to either undermine or champion itself.




The epitome of a cinematic representation of every aspect of court, and courtroom behavior can be found in the 1990’s film adaptations of the work of John Grisham. For the better part of a decade, John Grisham legal dramas dominated the box office. Medium to midrange budgets would net a box office that was three times as much. Granted, each of these films played on the cultural star power of new young talent at the time: Tom Cruise (The Firm) Susan Surrandon (The Client) Mathew Maconnehey and Sandra Bullock (A Time to Kill), Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts (The Pelican Brief) Matt Damon (The Rainmaker) and Chris O’Donnell (The Chamber). Yet, the success of these films became etched in the cultural fabric of the 90’s and shaped the cultural zeitgeist of legal dramas for a generation. Suddenly, even non-news/ media savvy audience members had legalese in their lexicon and were aware of not only the basic process of the Criminal Justice System, but depending on the plot of each film, they may have been aware of specific legal concepts like: Torte reform, contract law, tax shelters, death penalty processes and insurance fraud. The popularity of Grisham’s books and their film adaptations brought the legal subculture into the mainstream. With that, however, came complacency to a system which, with the right argument, can work for anyone. That inclusiveness reinforces the normalization of the adversarial system; people in the films likening it to a friendly sports rivalry- while presenting it as good, fair and balanced, supporting the conformist idea that justice will always prevail.      

Punishment

Historically, there have been four types of punishment in the US Criminal Justice System: Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation and Societal Protection. Each type focuses on specific ways to punish, based upon its underlying goal.   Retribution is an act of moral vengeance (an eye for an eye) by which the society makes the offender suffer as much as they inflicted on others (including if the person “harmed” the governing body itself) through the particular crime in which they were found guilty.  Here, it is believed, punishment that is in equal measurement to the crime will create balance. Deterrence is the type of punishment that is often used to discourage future law breaking.  This could deter individuals in a specific (consequence of behavior) or general (making an example out of a person) way. This is part of the rational “enlightenment” way of thinking that believes people will not break the law if they know there is going to be a substantial punishment. The deterrence model of punishment was in response to the retribution model and led to the establishment of the prisons and jails system. Rehabilitation is the type of punishment focused on the reformation of the offender in order to prevent later offenses (this rose with the social sciences). Thus, correctional facilities were created to change or reform deviants and criminals into conforming, better-adjusted members of society:

-           Getting degrees in prison

-           Alternatives to Incarceration

-           They treated the offender and not the offense

Societal Protection (incapacitation) This type of punishment focuses on the removal of the offender from society.  The rationale is that society will be protected from them and thus be better off. From this mindset, if you don’t ever let people get out of prison, it cuts down on over all Recidivism: The rate by which individuals reoffend. This led to both the practice of warehousing and overcrowding of inmates in prisons.

            Incarceration is exclusively the type of punishment that we see on screen. Any film set in prison is supposed to humanize inmates through its narrative focus. There is often a character arc that represents the difference between morally good vs. legally just. If the focus is on the inmates of a prison, that humanization leads the audience to question the reasons why those inmates have been incarcerated. Unfortunately, few films that are part of this “Copaganda” agenda rarely have systemic answers. Thus, in classic films like The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) was wrongly convicted and under the thumb of a corrupt warden. Here, his escape is framed as justice. Meanwhile, his friend Red (Morgan Freeman) convicted of murder when he was a teenager, only gets parole when he is finally broken of any hope; thereby still showing that the system works.




Conversely, when many of the alternatives to incarceration (parole, work release, probation etc.) are depicted on screen, they often do not have the same dramatic pathos alone. Someone may be depicted as having an ankle monitor, or they make an offhanded comment that they are on parole or just got put on probation. However, many of these alternatives are bureaucratic and involve standard meetings that are rarely seen on screen. The exception to this is the alternative of court mandated psychotherapy or counseling, which is very cinematic and the premise of a lot of dramas from The Prince of Tides, One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest, to The Sopranos.[10]       

Each of these types of punishment have been used throughout US history, often with disproportionate enforcement against people of color, who regularly experience violence and terror at the hands of the carceral state. From slave codes to now mass deportations, the organization of the Criminal Justice system is to dehumanize and discourage people of color (Perea 2021, Alexander 2010). Film and TV reinforce this by laundering the image of Black and Brown people to only fit that of a criminal. Every actor of color has been offered, or has played, everything from inmates to drug warlords, filmmakers reserving the complex and nuanced performances for white protagonists. As we have seen, the visibility of people of color as only criminals through film and TV has a lasting impact on public perception, especially considering the ferocity with which this cinematic Copaganda is consumed. Correlation is often mistaken as causation in film and TV portrayals, creating an erroneous direct relationship between race and crime. This is done without the context of systemic issues that keep individuals in poverty and circumvent the law. They are hardly ever addressed in this content. Instead, these portrayals opt for an individually focused solution, framing criminality as a “choice”; with full agency and autonomy. More nefariously, it can be argued that this racist shaping of the public perception is intentional; another example of the adaptation of the Criminal Justice System against Brown and Black people that has historically altered itself to accommodate slavery and segregation, to mass incarceration. Film and TV keep these images in the public consciousness and continue to present Black and Brownness as a problem (Edwards 2019).     

 


CONCLUSION

 

            Copaganda”, especially through narrative films and TV, reinforces the adversarial approach to criminal justice, emphasizing the importance of policing, the value of the courts and the necessity of our prisons. Even stories that are not actively pushing this “Copaganda” agenda, often promote a general conformation to authority. Cinema is used in this way to obfuscate the intentionality of the CJS’s unjust and unequal operations as working by design in the minds of the public[11]. Additionally, when there is corruption, the films about cops, courts and incarceration regularly tell the audience that it is not systemic, but an individual, bad actors that can be rooted out by using the system itself…the right way. This is a form of collective gaslighting that ends with conditioning the US populace into believing that the problems of a powerful system can be changed by those within that system who run it. -DUN DUN.



 

REFERENCES

Alexander, Michelle 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of ColorBlindness  New York: The New Press.

 

Asimow, Michael 2017. “A Genre Study of Prosecutors and Criminal Defense Lawyers in American Movies and Television” in Criminology and Criminal Justice Oxford University Press

 

Baker, Stephanie 2013.”Films of the 1950’s: Two Perspectives on Post-War America” in Creative Matter Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=mals_stu_schol

 

Bakkenes, FJV 2023 “Copaganda: The Correlation Between Cop Shows And Real-life Law

 Enforcement” Tilburg University Retrieved on 9/07/2025 Retrieved at https://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=162891

 

Balko, Radley 2021. Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces Revised and Updated New York: Public Affairs Press.

 

Brutlag, Brian 2022. “ Police, ‘The Punisher’ and Performative Masculinity” The Sociologist’s Dojo Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2022/08/police-punisher-and-performative.html

 

___________ 2021. “ The Sociology of Nicholas Cage: Simulacrum and Hyper-reality of ‘A Massive Talent” The Sociologist’s Dojo Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://thesociologistsdojo.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-sociology-of-nicolas-cage.html?m=0

 

Color of Change 2020. “The Dangerous Misrepresentations that Define Televisions Scripted Crime Genre:  A Comprehensive Study of How Television’s Most Popular Genre

Excludes Writers of Color, Miseducates People about the Criminal Justice

System and Makes Racial Injustice Acceptable” The USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at  https://hollywood.colorofchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Normalizing-Injustice-Abridged.pdf

 

Edwards, Blake 2019. “Acting Black: An Analysis of Blackness and Criminality in Film” University of Southern Mississippi Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1718&context=masters_theses

 

Fichtelberg, Aaron 2023. Criminal [in}Justice: A Critical Introduction Los Angeles Sage Publishing

 

Goffman, Erving 1959.  The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life  New York: Anchor Books

 

Karakatsanis, Alec 2025. Copaganda: How Police and the Media Manipulate Our News Audible Studios

 

Lorde, Audre 2007. “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House.” In Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches pp110-113. Berkeley. Crossing Press.  

 

Marouf, Fatima 2023 “ Immigration Laws Missing presumption” in Race Racism and the Law Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://racism.org/articles/citizenship-rights/immigration-race-and-racism/11465-immigration-laws-missing  

 

Perea, Juan 2021. “Policing the Boundaries of the White Republic: From Slave Codes to Mass Deportations” in  A Field Guide to White Supremacy Kathleen Belew and Ramon A Gutierrez eds. California: University of California Press

 

 Podlas, Kimberly 2005. “"The CSI Effect": Exposing the Media Myth” in Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal  Retrieved on 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1343&context=iplj

 

Riesman, Abraham 2020. “Why Cops are so in Love with The Punisher” Vulture Retrieved on: 7/30/2022 Retrieved at: https://www.vulture.com/article/marvel-punisher-police-cops-military-fandom.html

 

Roman, A. (2019, October 4). Squadroom: Ariel Winter’s SVU Dreams Came True On Set

(season 21, episode 2). NBC. Retrieved Sept, 1st 2025, from

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5BKffCyuZ2Ihaa1GmGsL00

 

The Guardian 2020. “Cops: the violent legacy of a TV show that sculpted America's view of police. The cancellation of the long-running reality show puts an end to a problematic ratings hit that was seen by its many critics as unethical and dangerous” in The Guardian Retrieved at 9/7/2025 Retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/jun/11/cops-american-police-tv-show

 

 



[2] This then assumes that those that have a greater level of interaction with the police, those whom, due to systemic factors like predatory capitalism and racism, are typically poorer and a person of color, have a clearer understanding of the practical actions of the CJS in operation. Valid.

[3] In classic Millsian tradition: the economy, the military and the government

[4] Films of the 1950s: Two Perspectives on Post-War America by Stephanie J. Baker

[5] During its height in 2015

[6] There is  an interesting metaphor here, as many of these programs are often

[8] Note: There are too many examples to go through for specific case studies. Therefore, the following analysis will discuss overall themes and tropes of the Criminal Justice System on screen with reference to specific examples rather than an in depth analysis into one specific example to encompass the whole branch

[10] As an aside, many of these stories about therapists and their patients have gross ethical violations

[11] The inequality to dispossess people of resources and social, economic and political power