Book review: Rafe McGregor, A Criminology of Narrative Fiction

Abstract

Chapter Seven concludes the book with macro, meso and micro levels of analysis. At the macro level, film is understood to be a powerful resource that informs public opinion. We Are Monster and Everyday were seen as providing a voice for marginalised groups and exploring the realities of prison life. However, depictions of violent prisoners legitimise the carceral turn. At the meso level, it was understood that whilst such depictions may be gorily entertaining or allow for vicarious experiences of resistance and rebellion, they ignore the non-violent, domesticated reality of most prisoners’ incarcerated lives, reinforcing monstrous stereotypes. Physical violence was seen as unrepresentative of contemporary imprisonment, which relied on more insidious, neo-paternal controls to ensure compliance, though except for its depiction in Bronson, the interpretation of penal power as an iron fist in a velvet glove came exclusively from the audience. Again, the question remains here of film’s role – is it to educate or entertain? Would the audience think that films have a responsibility to represent prisoners more fairly? Such areas provide fertile ground for future research to explore the role of prisoners in critiquing prison films. At the micro level, the films encouraged the audience to turn inwards and reflect on personal experiences. This book is an exciting read, not only for its remarkable content but because of the opportunities for future research. Bennett and Knight propose that alternative audiences, alternative media and alternative viewing experiences are just some ways that this research area may be expanded. This study is clearly limited by time, number and type of participants, but these limitations do not prevent the study from breaking new ground in an innovative area, allowing imprisoned people to return and refute the voyeuristic cinematic gaze. The book also challenges the notion that prisoners are unfit to consume media. The participatory audience show themselves to be astute and sagacious critics who are more than capable of informed and analytical discussions. With this recognition, it is possible to see that prisoners might play a part in the consumption and critique of media, but also, as Bennett and Knight suggest, in the production of media. Such work may contribute to rehabilitation by encouraging creativity and teaching relevant skills, and its products may also challenge public perceptions of prisoners and even the shibboleth of the prison itself.