#8 Three-Act Films

Three act structure, triumphant story arc with the peak, climax of the film within the last ten or so minutes. It contains a couple of mini-climaxes that push the plot along.

Example: Taken ( Runtime = 93 min )

The first act introduces us into the world of the film and its circumstance. Our hero Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) is an ex-special operative of the government, divorced, and has a daughter whom he cares dearly for. The first mini-climax happens when he daughter is kidnapped. Mills resolves to go after the kidnappers no matter the cost.

The second act features Mills following up on the few leads he has and begins to learn about the kidnappers. Soon, he realizes that the tentacles of the organization that took his daughter extend to the local police and even a former friend. The second mini-climax happens when Mills crosses an ethical line and shoots his former friend’s wife to force his cooperation. He reaches the point of no return.

The third act is where Mills is in the process of rescuing his daughter. He finds where she is sold off, follows the buyer, and has to bust caps in the man’s yacht. The final climax of the movie is where, after taking a good deal of damage, Mills finally confronts the ‘boss’ and proceeds to waste him. After this point, the family begins to recover and return to normalcy.

Images from:

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/liam-neeson-appears-to-be-jumping-into-the-matrix.php

http://www.smh.com.au/news/film-reviews/taken/2008/08/08/1218139055531.html

http://bluemoviereviews.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/dvd-review-taken/

http://cinemasights.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/taken-2009/

#7 Sitcoms

Sitcom’s cyclical/ repeated patterns are classic conventions that have endeared audiences for decades. They are the catchphrases, running gags, and character mannerisms that are used time and time again throughout a series. Audiences will come to expect them and look forward to the payoff. These patterns often come to define the characters within the show.

Repetition provides familiarity for the sitcom genre. The sitcom is designed as a distraction, an escape from the severity and unpredictable nature of daily life. Its purport, alleviate stress with a good laugh. To facilitate this, sitcoms had to provide for a level of predictability, a level of safety. Though suspense and misdirection exists within any sitcom’s plot, there always are these expected gags and conventions to keep such stresses in check.

The Nanny basically built itself upon using cyclical themes and gags.

Though it is my favorite, it was no big surprise as to what was going to happen in any given episode. Fran would flirt with Mr. Sheffield, Niles the butler and CC the business partner would biker and insult each other, and the

kids would be getting into some form of mischief. The show was highly predictable, but that was the beauty of it. You knew what was going to happen, and you looked forward to it every time.

Pictures from:

http://azrol28.blogspot.com/2010/04/fran-drescher-nanny-1993-1999.html

http://entertainment.ca.msn.com/tv/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=22632952&page=9

#6 Scene Shot Analysis

A prime example of the traditional shot progression (Long to Middle to Close-up) is seen in the opening scene of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.

For the orientation long shot we are shown a caravan of sorts proceeding through what looks like the American Badlands. This shot serves to actually disorient us; we have very little information about what this caravan is, or really where it is. It gives us only vague landscapes that we can guess at without much hope of validation. This creates an air of mystery, a desire within us as audience to pursue this story further and see if we cannot find some answers.

After a spell, the middle shot becomes dominant and we are allotted some general information. We now see that the caravan is made up of boy scouts on an expedition. We end up following two of them into some nearby caves where they find a figure wearing the fashionable hat of our title star. Ah! It seems that the boys have stumbled upon our favorite Jones in midst of a dig. However, at the last moments of the shot, our Indy lifts his head to examine a find and lo and behold it is not Harrison Ford. The purpose of this sequence of middle shots was to give us enough information to make a false assumption, which deepens the previously establish mysticism as we then ask the prompted question. Well, if that’s not Dr. Jones then where is he?

This important detail is answered in the very next shot. As the camera fixes on one of the two boy scouts that ventured down this cave, the other begins to address him as “Indy”. Oh, that’s where he is…that’s odd; we think to ourselves as we study this close up of a teenage boy scout. Indy has lost weight…and age. O_o

Now we can piece this all together. What we are witnessing is an account of Indiana Jones’ early years. This realization is all the more enthralling because we as the audience had to come to this understanding by way of clever shot progression. The effect would not be near as engaging if the scene would have began with a close up of this boy and a title labeling him “Indiana Jones – age 16 (or so).” Clever shot progression is an art that, when done well, can make for classic Hollywood gold.

Screen shots from:

http://damianarlyn.blogspot.com/2007/08/day-17-indiana-jones-and-last-crusade.html

#5 Classical Hollywood

The star system of classical Hollywood was quite unique, and unlikely to ever reappear. Though they were ‘stars’, Hollywood basically owned that talent by way of contracts. Often times this allowed the studios to orchestrate the lives of stars for the sake of profit. The studios would create romances for their stars, limit their public appearances, and basically control their lives.

This affected movies in the way that stars became little more than studio branded products and thereby highly predictable. The audience knew what to expect solely by the featured star. John Wayne movies tended to be westerns or war stories, Sinatra and Crosby became known for musicals, and one could expect Bogart films to be crime related. These typecasts made the production of films rely heavily on who was in it.

An example of this is Shirley Temple. She was molded by the powers of classical Hollywood to be the musical child hero. Before even entering the theater, the audience knew that Temple was going to save the day and do so in song. That concept still exists today, but it is no longer as binding. Now-a-days stars can cross genre; like Jim Carrey in the Majestic or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

Images from:

http://www.celebritywonder.com/wallpaper/Jim_Carrey_in_Eternal_Sunshine_of_the_Spotless_Mind_Wallpaper_2_1024.html

http://www.realbollywood.com/news/2010/08/classic-hollywood-captured-magnum-lens-india.html

Assignment #4 ("All in the Family")

“All in the Family” differs from modern family sitcoms in its sense of reality. It is done in a very calm, low context style featuring ‘situations’ based in common occurrences. A show like “Modern Family”, however, is quite different. The characters are often placed in extreme situations, to hold the audience’s interest before delivering the moral message. For example, the “All in the Family” episode featured Archie at home and his favorite bar. Whereas in the relatively recent show “Family Matters”, the main characters went on a vacation in the mountains where their cottage was missing a wall; thus allowing for the bitter cold and drifting snow to fill the room. “All in the Family” does not take their characters into such extreme situations. Perhaps, considering its social agenda, the writers felt having such outrageous situations would detract from the character’s credibility. This would make their goal of social advancement all the more difficult.

Despite the differences in the ‘spiciness’ of the circumstances featured in “All in the Family”, the use of ‘shock factors’ remains prevalent in the modern sit-com. The case and point is “Modern Family”, which is a show basically built with families that are considered outside the norm. There’s a gay couple, an interracial couple with a large age gap, and the classic dysfunctional white family; all of which serve to redefine the accepted idea of family.

Where the Archie Bunker character is an exercise in bigotry in the hopes of denouncing it, the ‘modern’ families is a waltz with alternative life-styles in an effort to normalize them.

While this mentality of social progressivism remains the same, the topics addressed do not. The current regime of television is careful to avoid certain offensive content, the whole ‘politically correct’ issue, and bigotry is a big one. While modern TV will occasionally feature a bigot character, they are consistently demonized and judged. Archie Bunker, however, is a protagonist, he is the character the audience is supposed to identify and sympathize with. He is unapologetic about his flagrant bigotries, despite the fact that he is designed as a tool to fight such hate. The candid and unabashed use of slurs and insults would never make it through onto today’s networks. It is the shame of our nation; a nation that wants so desperately to believe that mainstream racism is dead. The nature of modern networks will not allow for another Archie Bunker. He is simply too raw for modern TV, he is a side of us all that we would rather not admit to.

Image citations:

http://www.alamo.edu/pac/faculty/pmyers/hist1302/1301Theme11.html

http://www.screenshotblog.com/posters/family-matters-1989/

http://www.tvfanatic.com/gallery/modern-family-poster/