Fruitvale Station

Fruitvale Station

Fruitvale Station is a 2013 drama film based upon the real life shooting of Oscar Grant in 2009. The shooting sparked massive outrage among not just black communities but from people of every colour. What made this shooting particularly hit home with many people was the direct video footage of the incident filmed by people on the train. The police officer went on trial for murder soon after the shooting and received only 2 years in prison. He claimed that he mistook the gun for his taser despite the different location, weight and colour of the gun. However it is clear that the film presents only one viewpoint and leaves out some important details from Oscars life that make many viewers feel deceived by the films message.

The films message is very important as it carries small details throughout the film which make the shock of the ending even more effective. Although the film makes it clear that Oscar Grant was no saint as seen through his threatening behaviour to his boss when trying to get his job back, his drug dealing, his cheating and him being in prison (he was in prison for illegal gun possession which the film doesn't tell you perhaps as it would make Grant seem violent and less easy for the audience to feel sympathetic towards him). Despite this the film does it's best to redeem Grant from all this. It is true that by all accounts Grant was good at heart and was indeed trying to turn his life around during his last days alive.

However a few scenes are fabricated details from Grants life. It is possible that these scenes exist to increase Grants likeability. For example the dog scene in which a dog is hit by a car and Grant is shown to be very upset and tries to help the dying dog. This makes him seem very relatable as most people like animals and can feel for the situation. This scene was made up by the director Ryan Coogler and many believe it was for this purpose. Coogler however says that the dog is symbolic of young black men as the dog is a pit bull, a breed of dog associated with violence much like how black men are often portrayed. This is a good example of conflicts with reception theory. The preferred reading is that the dog is a metaphor for young black men where as the oppositional reading is that the scene is used to manipulate the audiences emotions. Personally I sit on the fence with the negotiated reading. I certainly believe the metaphor and think it is a clever detail added by Coogler however I also believe that the scene is to emotional to believe that it is in no way meant to make the audience like Grant more as a person.

The film also alters some details about the shooting itself which could somewhat seem twisted. For example in the film it appears Grant is lying and not moving when he gets shot which begs the question of even if the officer meant to taser him then why did he need to taser him. However actual footage shows Grant resisting arrest a lot more. Some details that were key to the case remain for example the officer steps back which is standard procedure for taser use which was a key argument. Of course the argument of position, weight and colour of the gun remains however it appears that some details were omitted. I still believe that the police officer deserves far worse for the shooting however I believe that more care should've been taken to be true to event as otherwise I feel it may undermine the message of the film. 

Film scene shows no resistance from Grant.

However in the real footage Grant can be seen to be lifting his body off the ground and resisting.

My point here is that there are many ways that the film could've still made Grant likeable without bending the truth or omitting all of the points made in defence of the shooters actions. I am not on the shooters side by any means and I believe that racial hatred had an influence on his actions which is part of the reason he acted to suddenly and without thinking about consequences. Perhaps the shooter prejudice subconsciously caused him to pull a gun rather than a taser. However it is important to still give a fair representation of events.

The audiences reception of the film according to reception theory could go three ways. The preferred reading is that the film depicts the unjust and horrendous murder of a young and unarmed black man by racist white cops. This reading is rather reasonable especially with the amount of similar and certainly racially motivated attacks on black men in recent years. I believe that although this reading may not take all facts into consideration it does spread the message about police brutality which has only become more relevant with time with incidents such as this incident in which despite being at close range police shoot a mentally ill black man rather than taser him.

Warning graphic content

Seeing videos like this will make almost anyone angry and upset and so it is a very reasonable response to fight for change.The negotiated reading is that the film is spreading a good message however should try to be more accurate to events. The oppositional reading is that the film twists events and is deliberately manipulative of its audience. Some extremely oppositional viewers may even think that Grants killing was justified.

Overall the film represents its main issues in a way that can be viewed in multiple ways and perhaps it would've been wise to eliminate these possible readings by being more accurate.